Frolova Valentina

Saint Petersburg, Russia

Bachelor 2 years of study

The work of Bernard Shaw, the problems of the play "Pygmalion"

Bernard Shaw broke into the public life of England in the 80s of the 19th century as an outstanding public figure, orator and publicist. It was a time of rapid upsurge of the English labor movement. But he decided to devote his life to writing. If Shaw the publicist sincerely tried to fight for the new society, then Shaw the writer and theater critic led the fight for a new drama.

The English theater of the second half of the 19th century was filled with insignificant, "well-made" plays, where a sentimental love line usually led to a happy ending, and any social denunciation was simply unthinkable. Shaw began his struggle for a new drama by promoting the work of the Norwegian writer Ibsen. He organized a series of lectures on the most progressive writers of the era - Leo Tolstoy, Turgenev, Zola. In 1892, Shaw's first play, The Widower's House, appeared, which, although a failure, caused a lot of noise.

Within eight years (from 1892 to 1899) three brilliant dramatic cycles were created: Unpleasant Plays, Pleasant Plays and Plays for Puritans. Ten plays, varied in genre and subject matter, were permeated with a sense of sarcastic anger against the bourgeois Pharisees, the desire to unmask the "virtuous" pillars of society and the family. They were also united by the playwright's innovative method - his persistent and bold appeal to paradox, to the constant turning inside out of common truths, to a reasoned and sharp discussion. The main goal of these plays by B. Shaw is to ridicule and denounce English society and world militant imperialism in all its manifestations.

The plays of Bernard Shaw meet the most important requirement for progressive theater: the theater should strive to "depict the nature of man as" amenable to change and dependent on class. The show was interested in the connection between a person's character and his social position. This is especially proved by the fact that he made a radical restructuring of character the main theme of the play "Pygmalion". After the huge success of this play, the story of Eliza, who was transformed from a street girl into a society lady by the professor of phonetics Higgins, is known today even more than the Greek myth. Pygmalion is the legendary king of Cyprus, who fell in love with a statue of a girl he himself created. It is clear that Shaw's intention was to name the play after a mythical king, which is meant to be a reminder that Eliza Doolittle was created by Alfred Higgins in the same way that Galatea was created by Pygmalion. Man is created by man - such is the lesson of this Shaw play.

The first problem that Shaw solves in the play was the question "is a person a changeable being." In the play, a girl from East London, with all the character traits of a street, is transformed into a woman with the character traits of a lady of high society. To show how radically a person can be changed, Shaw chose to go from one extreme to another. If such a change in a person is possible in a short time, then the viewer must understand that any other change in a human being is also possible.

The second important question of the play is what gives a person the correct pronunciation? Is it enough to learn how to speak correctly to change social position? Here is what the protagonist Professor Higgins thinks about this: “If you knew how interesting it is to take a person and, having taught him to speak differently than he has spoken so far, make him a completely different, new creature. After all, this means destroying the abyss that separates class from class and soul from soul.

As the play repeatedly emphasizes, the dialect of East London is incompatible with the being of a lady, just as the language of a lady cannot be with the being of a simple East London flower girl. When Eliza forgot the language of her old world, the way back was closed for her. Thus, her break with the past was final.

Bernard Shaw paid much attention to the problems of language. The play, in addition, had another serious task: Shaw wanted to draw the attention of the English to phonetics. He fought for the creation of a new alphabet that would be more in tune with the sounds of the English language than the current one, and which could make it easier for foreigners to learn this language. In Pygmalion, Shaw connected two topics that were equally exciting for him: the problem of social inequality and the problem of classical English.

One of the theses of the play says that human character is determined by the totality of personality relations, and linguistic relations are only part of it. In the play, this thesis is concretized by the fact that Eliza, along with language lessons, also learns the rules of behavior. Consequently, Higgins explains to her not only how to speak the language of a lady, but also, for example, how to use a handkerchief.

If Eliza does not know how to use a handkerchief, and if she is reluctant to take a bath, then it should be clear to any spectator that a change in her being also requires a change in her daily behavior. The form and content of speech, the way of judgment and thoughts, the habitual actions and typical reactions of people are adapted to the conditions of their environment. The subjective being and the objective world correspond to each other and mutually permeate each other.

It was important for the author to show that all the qualities of Eliza that she reveals as a lady can already be found in the flower girl as natural abilities, or that the qualities of the flower girl can then be rediscovered in the lady.

The thesis about the presence of natural abilities and their importance for the creation of characters is most convincingly demonstrated by the example of the Higgins-Pickering couple. They are both gentlemen by social standing, but Pickering is also a gentleman by temperament, while Higgins is prone to rudeness. These differences and commonalities of both characters are constantly demonstrated by their behavior towards Eliza. If Higgins treats her rudely, impolitely, unceremoniously from the very beginning, then Pickering, on the contrary, is a born gentleman, and always shows tact and exceptional politeness in dealing with Eliza. Since no circumstances explain these differences in behavior, the viewer must assume that perhaps there is still something like an innate tendency to rude or delicate behavior. To prevent the false conclusion that Higgins' rude behavior towards Eliza is due solely to the social differences between him and her, Shaw makes Higgins behave noticeably harsh and impolite among his peers as well. However, for all his innate propensity for unceremoniously telling the truth, Higgins does not allow such rudeness in society as can be observed when he treats Eliza. When his interlocutor Mrs. Einsford Hill, in her narrow-mindedness, believes that it would be better "if people could be frank and say what they think," Higgins protests with the exclamation "God forbid!" and the objection that "it would be indecent".

The character of a person is determined not directly by the environment, but through interpersonal relationships and connections. Man is a sensitive, receptive being, and not a passive object that can be given any shape. The importance that Shaw attaches to this issue is confirmed by its placement at the center of the dramatic action.

In the beginning, Elise is for Higgins a piece of dirt that can be wrapped in newspaper and thrown into the dustbin. Washed and dressed, Eliza becomes not a person, but an interesting experimental object on which a scientific experiment can be performed. In a short time, Higgins made a countess out of Eliza, so he won his bet, which cost him a lot of effort. The fact that Eliza herself participates in this experiment does not reach his consciousness - as well as Pickering's consciousness - until the onset of open conflict, which forms the climax of the play. To his surprise, Higgins must conclude that between him and Pickering, on the one hand, and Eliza, on the other, a human relationship has arisen that has nothing to do with the relationship of scientists to their objects.

The viewer understands that Eliza became a lady not because she was taught to dress and talk like a lady, but because she entered into human relations with the ladies and gentlemen in their midst.

"A lady differs from a flower girl not in how she carries herself, but in how she is treated." These words belong to Eliza. In her opinion, the credit for turning her into a lady belongs to Pickering, not Higgins. Higgins only trained her, taught her the correct speech, etc. These are abilities that can be easily acquired without outside help. Pickering's courteous address brought about that inner change which distinguishes a flower girl from a lady.

The explanation for Pygmalion's ending is obvious: what is desired is not to transform the slum dwellers into ladies and gentlemen, but to transform them into a new kind of ladies and gentlemen whose self-esteem is based on their own work. Eliza, in pursuit of work and independence, is the embodiment of a new ideal of a lady who has nothing to do with the old ideal of a lady from an aristocratic society. She did not become a countess, as Higgins had repeatedly said, but she became a woman whose strength and energy are admired.

The play "Pygmalion" was written in years. In this play, Shaw used the myth of Pygmalion, transferring it to the setting of modern London. If the revived Galatea was the embodiment of humility and love, then Shaw's Galatea raises a rebellion against her creator. Shaw's immediate task, as he did his best to emphasize in the preface, is the promotion of linguistics, and primarily phonetics. But this is only one side of an interesting, multifaceted play. At the same time, this is a play of great social, democratic sounding - a play about the natural equality of people and their class inequality, about the talent of people from the people. This is also a psychological drama about love, which for a number of reasons almost turns into hatred. And, finally, this is a humanistic play, showing how carefully and carefully you need to approach a living person, how terrible and unacceptable a cold experiment on a person is. We feel the charm and originality of Eliza Doolittle already in the first acts, when she still speaks in ridiculous street jargon. Only pronunciation separates a street flower girl from a duchess, but Eliza isn't going to be a duchess. Galatea rises up against her creator with all the strength of an offended and indignant soul. Shaw managed in his play to highlight the issue of social inequality of people. The educated Eliza remains as poor as she was when she was a flower trader. Only the tragic awareness of their poverty and boundless inequality between people has been added.

"Pygmalion" is a mockery of the fans of "blue blood" ... each of my plays was a stone that I threw into the windows of Victorian prosperity, "- this is how the author himself spoke of his play. Now. Many years after his death, it becomes clear to mankind who it had and lost in the person of Shaw. It becomes clear that people like him cannot be lost at all - they remain with us forever.

History of creation: The work was created in 1912. (1913) XX century. - the era of modernism. During this period, Great Britain lost its position as the most powerful power in the world. But society became more just, and despite two world wars and the Great Depression, the average standard of living rose dramatically. There was the First World War, which deprived England of almost a million inhabitants and left huge debts. The economic crisis worsened the position of England. In the XX century. The social, economic and political situation of the country has deteriorated.

Genus: Drama

Genre: Comedy

Genre features: educational comedy, romantic comedy, social comedy, mythological comedy ("neomythologism")

Story sources: Literary (the myth of Pygmaleon; T. Smolett's "The Adventures of Peregrine Pickle"), Autobiographical (the author's attitude to political ideas and social inequalities). Domestic (London setting in the 20th century)

Main theme: the topic of social inequality

Subject: the theme of love, the theme of friendship, the problems of classical English, the theme of meanness

Plot:

Exposition (Rainy day. A lady and her daughter are sitting under a canopy. Freddy, her son, is looking for a taxi. Finding nothing, he returns and comes across a flower girl who drops flowers and shouts at him. A man with a notebook writes something, a flower girl he thinks something, he writes a denunciation on her and cries).

The tie (Meeting of Professor Higgins and Colonel Pickering. The flower girl pesters them, asking them to buy flowers from her. The arrival of the flower girl Eliza Doolittle at the professor's house, her request to improve her pronunciation)

Development of the action (Professor Higgins and Colonel Pickering's bet. Eliza Doolittle's father visits)

Climax (Reversal of Eliza Doolittle's life. Eliza's becoming a society lady. Attending social events. Eliza's quarrel with the professor. Eliza's escape. Higgins and Pickering's sadness).

Denouement (Change in the life and father of Eliza Doolittle. Eliza's wedding to Freddie. The girl's reconciliation with Higgins and Pickering.)

Compositional structure analysis:

a) Conflict:

· Basic(between the heroes of the "present" century and the "past" century)

· Side(between Eliza Doolittle and Henry Higgins; between Mrs. Higgins and Henry Higgins; between Alfred Doolittle and Eliza Doolittle; between Eliza Doolittle and Freddie)

b) Image system: Contrasting heroes: Heroes of the "present" and "past" centuries.

c) Images:

Eliza Doolittle: Flower girl, daughter of Alfred Doolittle. Attractive, but not having a secular upbringing (or rather, having a street upbringing), about eighteen - twenty years old. She is wearing a black straw hat, badly damaged in its lifetime by London dust and soot and hardly familiar with a brush. Her hair is of some mouse color, not found in nature. A reddish black coat, narrow at the waist, barely reaching the knees; underneath, a brown skirt and a canvas apron are visible. The shoes seem to have known better days as well. Without a doubt, she is clean in her own way, but next to the ladies she definitely looks like a mess. Her features are not bad, but the condition of her skin leaves much to be desired; in addition, it is noticeable that she needs the services of a dentist. The image of Eliza Doolittle was created for the actress Patrick Campbell and completed during the rehearsal in London's His Majesty's Theater (1914).

The heroine literally “bursts” into the play: vulgar, grimy, with wild, inarticulate speech, sometimes not devoid of originality (for example, the famous “Uu-aaaa-y!” or “Whoever stole the hat, he killed the aunt”). Henry Higgins decides - on a bet with Colonel Pickering - to make a "real lady" out of her. During the experiment, Eliza Doolittle undergoes a series of transformations.

The first is when she is “washed to such beauty” that her own father is not able to recognize. The second is when she, charming, with refined speech and manners, wins Hittins a bet. And the third - when she discovers her new, not yet settled, fragile, but living "I". Finding the right speech, she, like the heroines of her beloved Ibsen Show, first of all finds herself - not just “good manners”, but a different way of “being”. And, what is very important, "to be" independently, regardless of the will of your teacher - the sculptor Higtins. This is the heroine of a typical Chauvian paradox. She, as the heroine of the ancient story about Pygmalion and Galatea, should have fallen in love with Hittins and strive for marriage with him. But Shaw could not create such a heroine. His Eliza Doolittle, of course, is attached to Higgins, but the nature of this feeling is not entirely obvious to her, in any case, the erotic connotation does not prevail. For the heroine, her own person is much more important and interesting. Drama by Eliza Doolittle. in the fact that in some sense she is not “before-embodied” by her “creator”, who awakened in her natural talent - not only musicality, acting skills, wonderful ear, but also a bright, powerful personality. It was Higgins who awakened, and did not raise, his Galatea, and this is due to the fact that Eliza Doolittle. - the daughter of her father, a brilliant orator and philosopher, a gentleman scavenger Alfred Doolittle.

Of course, Eliza Doolittle can no longer return to her former self. And he doesn't want to. Her confusion is understandable: she already wants to live independently, but does not yet know how. Passionate, subtle nature, unlike Higgins, open to other people, able to distinguish and appreciate their mental properties, Eliza Doolittle humanly wins the "dispute" with her Pygmalion. The heroine of the show is called upon to break the stereotype of conforming to the traditional image of a "well-made play": instead of dreaming of orange blossom and Mendelssohn's march, she is making plans for an independent life.

Henry Higgins: Professor of phonetics. A man of about fifty, with gray hair and morels on his face, of small stature. Higgins was constantly dissatisfied with something, angry and seemed, at first glance, ill-mannered. At first, he treated Eliza worse than the maid. But there was always Colonel Pickering, who tried to calm Higgins. Professor Higgins and his old friend Pickering made a bet on the possibility of mastering a man who spoke dialects and swear words with wonderful English pronunciation with the help of a three-month course in phonetics. Higgins accepted the challenge and did his best not to embarrass himself in front of his friend. For him, it was a matter of honor, so he demanded that Eliza be ready to study phonetics almost around the clock. His tireless energy weakened the little flower girl and attracted at the same time. For Professor Higgins, Eliza was only a student, but at the same time she remained a woman to whom he, of course, became attached. At first, Eliza dreamed of going to work in a more prestigious store, but after receiving the prince, she was confused. Higgins was only interested in the bet, and he leaves Eliza to her fate. Such was the nature of this old bachelor. Bernard Shaw leaves the final open. Everything can change, but not in his play, but in the minds of the audience. Professor Higgins was not sorry for the girl, but for the effort expended on her. He offers to pick up a husband for her, if only she had somewhere to communicate in the future. He does not want to see the student's love for her teacher. Frightened of losing his freedom, Higgins does not stop the magical lady. It does not occur to him that the people of the lower stratum also have a soul.

Receptions:

10. Conclusion about the semantic concept: condemnation of betrayal and meanness, glorification of love, friendship, condemnation of the inequality of people, glorification of the new ideal of a lady.

"Pygmalion" is a mockery of the fans of "blue blood" - the author himself spoke about his play. It was important to Shaw to show that all the qualities of Eliza that she reveals as a lady can already be found in the flower girl as natural abilities, or that the qualities of the flower girl can then be rediscovered in the lady.

The character of a person is determined not directly by the environment, but through interpersonal, emotionally colored relationships and connections through which he passes in the conditions of his environment. Man is a sensitive, receptive being, and not a passive object that can be given any shape, like a piece of wax. to the center of the dramatic action.

“Leaving aside linguistics, it should first of all be noted that Pygmalion was a cheerful, brilliant comedy, the last act of which contained an element of true drama: the little flower girl did a good job of her role as a noble lady and is no longer needed - she just needs to return to the street or go out marry one of the three heroes." The viewer understands that Eliza became a lady not because she was taught to dress and talk like a lady, but because she entered into human relations with the ladies and gentlemen in their midst. While the whole play suggests in countless details that the difference between a lady and a flower girl lies in their behavior, the text states something quite the opposite: “A lady differs from a flower girl not in how she carries herself, but in how she is treated.” . These words belong to Eliza. In her opinion, the credit for turning her into a lady belongs to Pickering, not Higgins. Higgins only trained her, taught her the correct speech, etc. These are abilities that can be easily acquired without outside help. Pickering's courteous address brought about that inner change which distinguishes a flower girl from a lady. The instructiveness of the play lies in the synthesis - the determining factor for the essence of a person is his social attitude towards other people. Public attitude includes two sides: behavior and appeal. Eliza from a flower girl becomes a lady due to the fact that, at the same time as her behavior, the treatment she felt in the world around her also changed.

The interpretation of the Pygmalion ending is obvious. It is not of an anthropological nature, like the preceding theses, but of an ethical and aesthetic order: what is desirable is not the transformation of the slum-dwellers into ladies and gentlemen, like the transformation of Doolittle, but their transformation into a new type of ladies and gentlemen, whose self-esteem is based on their own labor. Eliza, in the pursuit of work and independence, is the embodiment of the new ideal of a lady, which, in essence, has nothing to do with the old ideal of a lady of aristocratic society. She did not become a countess, as Higgins had repeatedly said, but she became a woman whose strength and energy are admired. It is significant that even Higgins cannot deny her attraction - disappointment and hostility soon turn into the opposite. He even seems to have forgotten about the original desire for a different result and the desire to make a countess out of Eliza.

Composition

Experience shows that the primary perception of the play by schoolchildren occurs quite easily, without complications. What cannot be said about the secondary, in-depth perception, which should be the result of the analysis of the work by the students. In this case, the unconventional, paradoxical nature of Shaw's creative manner in general and the play "Pygmalion" in particular makes itself felt. This play is in many ways striking in its unusualness, confusing. Take, for example, the “open ending”, which requires the viewer to have a kind of “thinking” of a dramatic action - and therefore raises a number of questions in him instead of giving an answer to them. The aesthetic originality of the work significantly complicates the study of the play. Therefore, we consider it appropriate to make several considerations regarding the organization of the process of studying the play by students.

As noted, let's draw the teacher's attention to some of its key points, the clarification of which would help students understand the position of the author, the concept of the work. The title of the play. Pygmalion is a well-known hero of the ancient Greek myth in world culture. At the heart of this myth is a story about a sculptor. At the household level, it is believed that the sculptor Pygmalion passionately fell in love with the sculpture he created, this feeling breathed life into it. But over time, the content of the myth to a certain extent lost its original meaning, which in antiquity was completely different!

Here is how R. Graves tells the story of Pygmalion and Galatea: “Pygmalion, the son of Bel, fell in love with Aphrodite, and since she would never share a bed with him, he created an ivory statue of her, put it with him in bed and began to pray to the goddess to have mercy on him. Entering the statue, Aphrodite revived it with the name Galatea, who bore him Paphos and Metarma. Paphos, the heir of Pygmalion, was the father of Kinir, who founded the Cypriot city of Paphos and built in it the famous temple of Aphrodite. After getting acquainted with the myth, it is easy to see that the mythological basis was interpreted by Bernard Shaw in a very original way - even for the beginning of the 20th century. If in the myth we are talking about the love of a person (albeit a king, but still a person!) For a goddess, about love that can always be perceived as a challenge to the universe, which destroys the order of people's lives, then in Shaw's play we meet with an eccentric professor and a street flower girl, not even very “divine”.

And the relationship of these heroes is so far from tender feelings (at least at the beginning of the play) that the use of Pygmalion's name in the title can be considered a mockery. In addition, in comparison with the mythological history, the relationship between the modern playwright Pygmalion and Galatea (by the way, and “who is who” in the duet Eliza Doolittle - Henry Higgins?) is so confusing and surprising that the question involuntarily arises: was there a choice of name for the story? , which is told in the play, another paradox of the "great paradoxicalist" Bernard Shaw?

Such a boyish desire to prove to the respected Colonel Pickering his “omnipotence”, complete, on the border of outright impudence, ignoring the interests of “experimental material”, thick-skinnedness that borders on callousness in relation to Eliza on the day of her triumph, a kind of “intellectual bargaining”, which ends play, - these are the stages of the relationship of "Pygmalion" to his "Galatea". A stubborn desire to rise up the social ladder, a crazy bargaining for tuition salaries, a conversion to a mentally dubious "masterpiece" with an impeccable appearance and pronunciation, throwing shoes at the one who pulled her out of the swamp, fleeing the Higgins house and hypothetical return to it with the purchased gloves and tie - such a path is overcome before our eyes by the created Show "Galatea", thereby acquiring the alleged right to happiness ... The very relationships of the characters throughout the entire play indicate that its title was deliberately chosen by the author "from the opposite".

This contrast between the everyday meaning, which is invested by the modern writer's consciousness in the ancient myth, and the reality in the relationship between the main characters is one of the sources for the formation of a new, "intellectual" drama. The clash of not just feelings, but feelings, intellectually faceted (after all, behind the experiences of each of the main characters of the play there are certain ideas), gives the dramatic conflict of Pygmalion a special poignancy. At the same time, it provides him with a fundamental “openness”, predetermines the impossibility of resolving it, because when the conflict is allegedly exhausted in terms of feelings, his second, intellectual, plan is “revealed” to the viewer, and vice versa.

It can be concluded that it is in the title that Shaw “encrypts” the main features of the “intellectual drama” he created, points to its fundamental difference from the traditional drama. The unconventionality of the play is manifested primarily in the genre features of the work. The author characterizes it as "a novel in five acts" or "a poem in five acts". And Shaw creates a paradoxical “association” of the supposedly incompatible! After all, according to all genre canons, a novel, of course, can consist of five, but should these be parts? If we are talking about “actions”, then it must be something from dramatic works? So, the author consciously created a kind of "hybrid" of epic and drama. Shaw's composition is intended to be staged, but according to the canons of the epic, there is no list of characters in this “novel” (we get to know them only when they appear on stage).

Regarding the “poem”, the “lyrical coloring” of the dramatic action is beyond doubt, therefore, in the supposedly “intellectual drama”, the emotional subsoil is completely obvious. A kind of “love story” of Romeo and Juliet at the beginning of the 20th century - this is what the story described by Bernard Shaw is ... So, we have a dramatic work in which the traditional canons of dramatic art are consciously affected. There are stage directions in this dramatic work, but let's see what they sometimes look like. At the beginning of Act II, the remark occupies the entire page!

It describes not only the laboratory of Professor Higgins, but also ... his state of mind caused by certain life events, his behavior ... Numerous remarks “explain” in detail the intonations, gestures, facial expressions, body movements that accompany the replicas of the characters. All this creates the feeling that the reader is actually reading a novel, but the viewer during the performance cannot see all this - like a text! Under such conditions, the author of the “novel in five acts” practically deprives the director of the opportunity to change something in the work offered to him for stage interpretation, the least stage movement is so carefully provided.

Over time, such dramaturgy will be called "director's". The re-enactment of plays of such a plan on stage will force directors to choose: whether they conscientiously follow the “author's instructions” in the form of countless stage directions, thereby limiting the range of their own creative searches, or whether they will need to significantly “depart” from the author’s intention, creating, in essence, their own stage performance. version of the "novel-poem". Challenge the playwright? Although, perhaps, the “great paradoxicalist” was counting on this? So, while studying the work, the teacher must necessarily take into account the fact that the text of Pygmalion is a kind of synthesis of the epic, lyrical and dramatic foundations. The union of all three literary genres! This is also necessary because at school, as a rule, it is the text of a dramatic work that is studied. In general, the study of a performance based on a work at school is fundamentally impossible, since the performance exists only as long as it lasts.

Therefore, the problems of the “image of the author” and the “lyrical hero”, which are very relevant when working with epic works, are also significant in this case. Of particular importance is the comprehension by schoolchildren of the author's assessment of what is depicted, which is displayed in remarks. Comparison of images - the main character of Professor Henry Higgins and one, in our opinion, of the main characters - the scavenger Alfred Doolittle, Eliza's father. We believe that each of the characters can be considered as a "Pygmalion" in relation to his role in the process of "creating" the personality of Eliza Doolittle.

Composition

Fundamentally new for the characterization of the image of the heroine is her appearance in the fourth act of the play. Here - for the first time! - attention is sharpened not on her appearance, not on behavior, but on her inner world, emotional experiences. This is how we see Eliza: “Elise opens the door and, illuminated by the light from the hall, appears in expensive jewelry and luxurious evening clothes ... She goes to the fireplace and turns on the light. It can be seen that she is tired: a pale complexion, full of tragedy, contrasts sharply with dark eyes and hair. She takes off her cloak, puts it together with gloves and a fan on the piano - and silently, sits down on a bench. There is no doubt that this is indeed a qualitatively new "appearance" of the heroine. Before the viewer appears, first of all, a tired young girl, and this person is experiencing, as you might guess, a deep spiritual drama. If not a tragedy. Tragedy and sadness - that's what defines her state of mind, and the remark emphasizes this.

And further events, conversations and behavior of Higgins and Pickering, their dismissive attitude towards Eliza reveal the origins of these feelings, this tragedy. The stage directions, which show Eliza's reaction to the conversation between Higgins and Pickering, also create a new image of the heroine for the play. Here is how she reacts to statements that are offensive to her: “Elise looks at him gloomily - she suddenly jumps up and leaves the room”; “Eliza already cringes, however, men do not even pay attention to her. She takes control of herself again…”; Eliza's beauty takes on an ominous aspect. As you can see, she is silent, but this silence hides deep feelings. Self-esteem, self-respect keeps Elisa from saying everything they deserve to “respectable” interlocutors, and this is what remarks convey. At the same time, such behavior is the behavior of a person that we have not seen before. Since now in the image of Eliza external perfection and human dignity, tact, humanity are combined.

We believe that it is precisely this appearance of Eliza, her long-lasting eloquent silence that prepares the perception of her next conversation with Higgins: the viewer understands and feels that he is no longer just a “masterpiece” of the professor’s pedagogical skills and tailor’s sophistication, but a living person with deep emotional experiences, moreover the person is extremely humiliated. As it turns out over time that she is denied the right to be a living person, she is assigned the role of a soulless doll, which should only do what Higgins wants to see. Eliza's “appearance” in Act 5 again markedly contrasts with the way we left her after the raging showdown with Higgins: “Elise enters, proud and sedate, her face radiating affability. She dominates herself as never before and keeps surprisingly at ease. She has a small work basket in her hands. It is clear that she feels at home here.”

We have never seen such Eliza in the play, such a heroine has never been! And it's not just that she keeps herself "surprisingly at ease." Although this is a lot, because until now it was “excessive impressionability” that was the defining feature of the heroine. The main thing is that in the end Eliza found peace of mind and self-respect. Now her external beauty is in complete harmony with the naturalness and ease of behavior, internal culture. Now neither Higgins nor anyone else will be able to manipulate this person with words or any “signals”. Since she made her choice, therefore, from now on, this person is self-sufficient. From now on, only she herself will decide what to do and how to behave in any case. The next “appearance” of the heroine in the play completes - in terms of composition - the moral transformation of the image of Eliza Doolittle. A certain paradox (Shaw's style!) of this transformation lies in the fact that in the last act of the play, her heroine represents the same "harmony of form and content" - from the point of view of a holistic artistic image - as in the first! But when it comes to the personality of the heroine, this integrity is on a qualitatively different level. This time before the viewer and reader there is not a “bunch of rotten carrots”, but a self-sufficient person, an original personality who will never allow himself to be “crushed” by anyone. The sequence of “appearances” of Eliza Doolittle recreates the main stages of the moral development of the heroine, determines the main stages of gaining her true self-esteem, awareness of herself as a person.

So, in this way, we were convinced that the use of elements of compositional analysis in the process of working on the image-character greatly facilitates the students' holistic comprehension. Elements of compositional analysis should also be used when we are trying to figure out the playwright's intention as a whole. The artistic canvas of "Pygmalion" makes it possible to use the technique, which we conventionally called "the reverse appearance of heroes." Its essence lies in the fact that in "Pygmalion" the author consistently builds the logic of the appearance on the stage of each image according to the general plan of the work.

Accordingly, “unraveling” this logic reveals to schoolchildren the general intention of the author. Let's consider this using the example of the sequence of appearances in the play of Eliza and her father at the beginning and at the end of the work. First we get acquainted with Eliza, and later with Alfred Doolittle. There is much in common in the images of the daughter and the father: both are poor, they are on the lower rungs of the social hierarchical ladder. At the same time, they are also united by the fact that each of the characters is a bright and original personality. There is, of course, a significant difference: Eliza seeks to escape from poverty, to take a worthy place in life, while his father is completely satisfied with his current state. The sequence of appearance “daughter - father” here not only represents each of the characters, but also makes it possible to better understand the character of Eliza - by getting to know her only relative, with the primary environment that formed the girl. But in the fifth act, the order of appearance of the heroes is changed: first the father appears in his new image, then the daughter.

Also in a new look… Why is that? Recall that the current Alfred Doolittle is a “impressively dressed” man in the latest fashion, a financially secure person who now has three thousand pounds of annual profit! The external contrast between this gentleman and the former scavenger cannot but strike, but ... In fact, as we will learn later, no personal changes have occurred ... Alfred Doolittle, who now has a lot of money, and Alfred Doolittle, who recently skillfully fooled Higgins five pounds, it's the same man! Wealth, prosperity cannot make a person better, they cannot change his essence for the better. This can only be done by upbringing, constant work on self-improvement - that's why after the father a daughter appears, who actually has become different.

Although she shows her surprise at the family reincarnation with the same indescribable terrible sound, which is also in the first act! In fact, as we have already noted above, we have before us a different, qualitatively better person. With the help of the “reverse appearance of heroes” technique, Shaw embodies in his work the leading Fabian idea, which claims that only education can change a person for the better, improve him, thereby taking a step towards a just and perfect society.

So, the use of elements of compositional analysis during the study of works of art can help the teacher to make work more effective, both on the comprehension of images-characters, and on the processing of the work of art as a whole. Features of the use of elements of compositional analysis in working with a specific text are determined by its genre characteristics, the creative individuality of the author and the specifics of age and literary development.

Pygmalion is a play by Bernard Shaw. The author called it "a novel in five acts." There are several options for translating the genre of "Pygmalion" into Russian - for example, "fantasy novel in five acts", or "sentimental novel in five acts". Like most of Shaw's dramatic works, which invariably brought the theater closer to journalism, "Pygmalion" has a short preface under the title "Professor of Phonetics" and an extensive afterword that tells about the further fate of the main character - the London street flower girl Eliza Doolittle. The play was written in 1912-1913, first staged on October 16, 1913 in Vienna. The English premiere took place at His Majesty's Theater in London on 11 April 1914 and ran for 118 performances. The show himself acted as director, the role of Eliza Doolittle was written by him specifically for Stella Patrick Campbell, professor of phonetics Higgins was played by Herbert Beerbom Tree.

Bernard Shaw, working on the play "Pygmalion", was guided by the ancient myth of the sculptor Pygmalion, who sculpted the statue of Galatea. Shocked by the beauty of his own creation, the artist begs Aphrodite to revive the marble figure. Galatea acquires a soul, becomes a beautiful woman, the happy wife of Pygmalion. However, Shaw is very far from obediently repeating the images and situations of ancient myth; on the contrary, they are paradoxically transformed in his play. Galatea-Eliza, according to the playwright of the 20th century, will never be the wife of Pygmalion-Higgins. A happy ending is impossible. Carrying out the first production, Shaw categorically forbade the actors to portray Eliza's mutual love. And Higgins. He was interested in something completely different - the tragic impossibility for an educated, talented, spiritually rich woman, deprived of capital, to adequately arrange her life in a capitalist society. It cost nothing for Eliza Cinderella to master modern English, the manners and behavior of secular ladies, in order to pass for a duchess or princess at any reception. But her future fate remains unpredictable. Bernard Shaw reworked the Pygmalion ending several times: first, Eliza resolutely left Higgins, never to return to him again; then, in an afterword, Shaw suggested that she might marry socialite Freddie Aysford-Heale and, with the material support of Higgins and his friend Pickering, open a flower shop. Finally, a sketch of another ending arose: Eliza again settled in the Higgins house, but not as a wife or lover, but exclusively on a friendly, business basis.

The ideological foundations of the play "Pygmalion" are deeply humane. The show believes in the inexhaustible supply of creative forces lurking in people from the people. Poverty can disfigure the appearance of a person, destroy his individuality. But under favorable circumstances, all the best quickly awakens. So, Eliza's father is a scavenger Alfred Doolittle, grotesquely written by Shaw, suddenly rich, with the brilliance and manners of a first-class orator, lectures to an exquisite audience.

During the writing of Pygmalion, Shaw was especially interested in phonetics. He believed that ideally correct English speech, free from cockney vulgarism and pretentious phraseology of aristocratic salons, is capable of changing a person’s thinking, strengthening his will, and developing a correct idea of ​​reality. Subsequently, in his will, he donated a large amount of money to the compilation of a new English alphabet, contributing to the destruction of the line between writing and pronunciation of words.

Constantly experimenting with characterizing the genre features of his plays, coming up with the most unexpected definitions, B. Shaw in most cases remained what he was, first of all, by vocation - a comedian. And Pygmalion is one of his best comedies. Here, the dialogues of the characters are full of aphorisms, sharp comedy episodes replace each other, the relationships of the characters paradoxically develop. The play "Pygmalion" with surprising ease underwent the most unexpected metamorphoses, turning into works of other types of art. Her stage history is extremely rich and varied.

Pygmalion has been played in Russia since 1915. Among the first directors were V.E. Meyerhold. The best performers of the role of Eliza in Russia were D.V. Zerkalova (Moscow Maly Theatre) and A.B. Freindlich (Leningrad Theater named after Lensoviet).

The first film adaptation of Pygmalion was made in England in 1938 (directed by Gabriel Pascal; Wendy Hiller as Eliza and Leslie Howard as Higgins). In 1956, Shaw's dramatic work became the basis for the musical My Fair Lady (music by Frederick Lowe, libretto by Alan Jay Lerner). This musical, which won the stage of theaters all over the world, was in turn filmed and entered into competition with Shaw's comedy. Russian ballet returned to the original source of Shaw's play in the television play Galatea (E.S. Maksimova - Eliza Doolittle).

Letters from Shaw and Stella Patrick Campbell, published after their deaths, prompted the American actor and playwright Jerome Kielty to compose the play Pretty Liar, a significant part of which was devoted to the preparation of Pygmalion, the complex creative and human relationship that developed between Shaw and Stella Patrick Campbell, eccentric, capricious, madly afraid at the age of 49 to play a young street flower girl, but in the end she perfectly coped with the role, accurately and subtly guessing the playwright's intention. After staging Kilty's play, a new "marathon" of the strongest actresses in the world began: now they played not just Eliza Doolittle, but Stella Patrick Campbell, who comprehended the essence of the heroine of the Show. They were Frenchwoman Maria Cazares, American Catherine Cornell, German Elizabeth Bergner, Russian actresses Angelina Stepanova and Lyubov Orlova. The role of Stella Patrick Campbell, who plays the role of Eliza, inspired all the actresses, as well as the actors who play Bernard Shaw. In one of the letters, he called the creative relationship that arose during the creation of "Pygmalion" between him and Stella Patrick Campbell "magical". The real "magic" was the new life of "Pygmalion" in "Pretty Liar".

Written on the eve of the First World War, Shaw's famous comedy had a significant impact on the entire European artistic culture of the 20th century. It is noteworthy that each new work created on the basis of Shaw's play, no matter what kind of art it belongs to, was of an independent nature, possessed new aesthetic features. And at the same time, there is a strong, organic connection between all of them. The life of "Pygmalion" in time is unique and inimitable in its own way.