Betty Lin on "Pygmalion" at the Abbey Theatre on June 7

            George Bernard Shaw’s Pygmalion: a Romance in Five Acts, contains a simple premise. Higgins (Ristéard Cooper), a Phonetics professor, takes on a bet from his colleague Colonel Pickering (Nick Dunning} that within the span of 6 months, he can transform and pass off Eliza Doolittle (Charlie Murphy), a common flower girl into a duchess. The complexities arise from the consequences of such actions. As Mrs. Higgins (Eleanor Methven), the professor’s mother, so aptly put it, “No, you two indefinitely stupid male creatures: the problem of what is to be done with her afterwards...the manners and habits that disqualify a fine lady from earning her own living without giving her a fine lady’s income” (Shaw 84).

            The play itself derives its name and concept from Greek mythology. Pygmalion was a sculptor who fell in love with his own creation (“Pygmalion”). Shaw however, updates this mythos by transplanting it in Edwardian Era London, circa 1912, and adding with it commentary on social class norms, values, and the question of autonomy - or freedom of choice. Shaw’s Pygmalion becomes not a love story of a sculptor and his sculpture, but “a romance in five acts,” in “A fictitious narrative, usually in prose, in which the settings or the events depicted are remote from everyday life, or in which sensational or exciting events or adventures form the central theme” sense (“Romance”). The ending also differs in that Eliza refuses to resign herself to being a creation. While Shaw began writing plays “in order to illustrate his criticism of the English stage,” Pygmalion is still reminiscent of Oscar Wilde’s social class comedies (George Barnard Shaw).

            The Abbey Theatre’s production of this play adheres to very Wildeian inspirations. The set and costume design, by Paul O’Mahony and Peter O’Brien respectively, pull from the “frothy” and fantastical, which appeared as inspirations for Shaw himself (particularly with the style of dialogue, characterization and “Note for Technicians” found in the preface) (Shaw 11).

            The set for Act 1 is sparse; a few large columns dominate an empty stage. Acts 2-5, are where the lavish “froth” comes into play. Higgins’ drawing room features a large wall upstage, from floor to ceiling. At the center of this wall are the double doors in which characters take their entrances and exits. Left and right lining the wall are book cases. All the space above the doors is filled with rows upon rows of storage bins. At stage right, Higgins’ desk covered in papers and sofa chairs offer some seating. At left, a piano. Dark wood paneling characterizes this space - the color palette remains rich and deep, very “masculine” in appearance. It is interesting to note the unrealistic quality of the wood treatment. No attempt at faux wood grain is applied. This style choice, I believe, was deliberately to highlight the unrealistic quality of the play and its narrative. I also believe Shaw would approve of the masterful technical capabilities of the Abbey - the set is cleverly designed as a giant jigsaw puzzle. The center section rows of storage bins fly out to reveal the upstairs ladies bath, functional too, as the bathtub held water. The revelation of the bathroom, however, is no comparison to the scene change from Higgins’ drawing room to Mrs. Higgins’ morning room. In this transition, the wall flies out in pieces to reveal an entirely new wall, one with curtained window doors leading onto a balcony. The coordinated ensemble brings out new furniture (sofas, chaises, and Mrs. Higgins’ writing desk) and cleverly reuses the same piano. This room is decidedly more “feminine” with its choice of décor. It does, however, feature a similar paneling and paint treatment running along the bottom half of the wall - this time in a grey rather than wood brown. While slightly more “realistic” in look because of its functioning balcony doors and wallpaper, the recurring paint style unifies it with the previous act. The set, in itself, is a work of art, complicated and layered, which can be an interesting metaphor for the play. It starts off very plainly, a bare stage with columns, and evolves into something very detailed and picturesque - much like the evolution of Eliza Doolittle.

            The costumes, designed by Peter O’Brien, are period glamour. The pieces are distinctively Edwardian, but still maintain an element of being fashionable. It is interesting to note that O’Brien started his career in the fashion industry before working in theater (Pygmalion, Abbey). Each costume is highly detailed. Eliza’s skirt is ripped, worn, and dirtied with care, as is Mr. Doolittle’s dustman attire. The dresses paraded around stage by the middle class ladies are a sight to see - crisp and well constructed. Eliza’s party dress in particular, with its beading, fabric choice, and color scheme is both beautiful and highly contrasted to her heavy, dark skirt and jacket from the beginning. The same meticulousness is found in the men’s pieces as well, though more in subtle aspects of fit and cohesion to the character’s role. It is also, in some ways taken for granted, how many different costumes (and costume changes) are in the play. Eliza has several different outfits. For example, the striped pinafore only appears for a few minutes as she re-learns her “ABC’s.” The sheer amount of buttons used on dresses, coats, blouses, and shirts is astounding.

             It is clear that the Abbey’s production took “frothy” to the maximum when creating the world of the play - after all, the visual aspects play an important role when establishing environment. Combined with Shaw’s text, the design aspects are fitting. Shaw is clear in his stage directions the look of each room, and how else would one represent
middle class and upper middle class England in the early 20^th century? I think it is impossible to separate the lavishness of the production from the play’s text, as they are so intertwined as to be labeled a “romance.”

Works Cited:

George Barnard Shaw. Biography. NobelPrize.Org, 1925. Web. 15 June 2011.

            <http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1925/shaw-bio.html>

Pygmalion. Abbey Theatre. 2011. Web. 15 June 2011.

<http://www.abbeytheatre.ie/whats_on/event/pygmalion/>

"Pygmalion." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica, 2011. Web. 14 Jun. 2011. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/484560/Pygmalion>.

"Romance." Def. 3a. The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 1989. Print.

Shaw, George Bernard. Pygmalion: a Romance in Five Acts. London: Penguin Classics, 2003. Print.

Bernadette Bascom and Anthony Rodriguez enjoying a rainy sunset
while waiting for others to gather to head over to the Abbey for Pygmalion. 

Slowly gathering outside our accommodations with the necessary umbrellas.  The rainy scene is reminiscent of the opening scene of the play though no one has to dive for cover yet.
Anthony looks ready to play the part of Mr. Higgins with his debonair tie and jacket!