Pygmalion | Minola Theatre
Minola Theatre’s Pygmalion is an entertaining night of comedy at the Ron Hurley Theatre.
Bernard Shaw’s Pygmalion has always been a popular show to breathe new life into, as a result of its social commentary on class, identity and gender and its dry wit. Since being a part of the public domain, the play has arguably been staged by an even larger number of professional and amateur companies over the world. Some may even argue that the play is outdone, outdated and question why producers are staging this work again instead of a new, contemporary play that’s more relevant to the twenty-first century?
Image credit: Kris Anderson
I must admit that I too was one of those people and I too wondered why I was sitting in the audience of yet another re-telling of this classic. In university, you have it ingrained in you as to answer ‘Why this play?’ and ‘Why now?’. I dwelled on this question in the audience before the lights came on and the actors set foot on the stage. Could it be to critique our society’s class structure and the power the wealthy have over the power? Or is it highlight the power imbalance between men and women and how some men still see women, especially women from a lower-social class as a toy to play with? I guess I’d find out…
Director Kat Dekker used comedy and pastiche as a vehicle through which to re-tell this traditional story, by making each character, in some ways, a mockery of themselves. Despite all the best efforts to make the characters more interesting, the overall pacing of the work was inconsistent with scenes that went on too long. Whilst understandably this was largely due to the text, some scenes could have afforded to be abridged by one-two pages and may have prevented audience members leaving the theatre during the final third of act one to go to the bathroom.
The set dressing was used as an effective tool to communicate the divergence in class between the different characters; with golden material being draped over the furniture to symbolise a higher class and wealth status; akin to when the character Eliza Doolittle wears her golden dress at the start of act two, once she has been integrated into high society. However, overall, the set design consisted of too many mis-matched furniture items which made it feel more like a university share house, then the home of a wealthy professor.
Image credit: Kris Anderson
Memorable performances include Ben Snaith as Professor Henry Higgins who played him as a camp, narcistic, childish mummy’s boy to whom the whole world was a toy shop of his own choosing. This need to possess and be possessive of everything in his path was skilfully executed by Snaith’s mannerisms, physicality, and gestures. Bianca Butler Reynolds was a powerhouse as Eliza Dolittle; her conviction to her changing dialect was believable and brought such nuance, heart, and sincerity to the role. Martie Blanchett had us wrapped in her fingertips with her bold and at times, sassy portrayal of Mrs Higgins, who seemed to be a representation of what most of us felt in the audience regarding her sons emotional and mental manipulation of a young, defenceless woman.
So, to answer the question of ‘Why this play?’ and ‘Why now?’ Based on Dekker’s direction, I’d argue that it was to remind us all that just because we may have the opportunity or resources to change someone’s lives who we believe is lesser than us, it doesn’t mean that we should. I’ll let you simmer on that…
