When viewing Act Two of Pygmalion, I often ask myself – is this really a comedy? Certainly some of the comedy found in Pygmalion is because of the abuse the other characters give Eliza, but if Eliza truly feels terrorized, is the play still funny? If we analyze the terror that Eliza is going through, the play may take on a different meaning. When Higgins says, “If you’re naught and idle you will sleep in the back kitchen among the black beetles, and be walloped by Mrs. Pearce with a broomstick” (967) the audience will laugh. But my question is why? Are we laughing because what he is saying is funny or are we laughing because it makes us uncomfortable? Worse, could we be laughing because Eliza is terrified of this professor, even though he has no intention of harming her?
When one laughs at a particular moment, I question who or what we are laughing at. If Eliza is not in on the joke, does the play continue to be funny? I argue that it is not. The fear Eliza has is a real fear. Some might argue – what does Eliza have to lose? Everything! She only knows one way of life. If Eliza manages to transform; she loses her identity. What is a person without his or her identity? The idea of transforming a person and stripping them of his or her past can have deep psychological facts. One article suggests, “Equally problematic for Eliza is the deepening of the inner split that we all first experience in the mirror stage… the realization that we can never close the gap between essence and expression and, even worse, that we deepen the split as we become more articulate” (Xiaoyan 68). Food for thought - Can Eliza losing herself be viewed as tragic, not comedic and if so - what are the repercussions?
No comments:
Post a Comment