Headscratchers / My Fair Lady

• If Henry Higgins is a linguist, and specifically studies accents, why does he have a whole song where he rants about how everyone should speak RP? Because if everyone spoke the same, there wouldn't be as much for him to study, and you'd think he wouldn't be in a profession where he purposely listens to speech he dislikes. I guess one explanation could be that he likes being a linguist but he still gets annoyed at hearing accents he doesn't find appealing. He still pretty much insulted everything but RP in that song, though.
  • If you want to fix something, first find out what's broken. Perhaps Higgins believes that in order to fix the problem of people not speaking properly he needs to study all of the differences in great detail.
  • Many early 20th century linguists still worked under the misconception of prescriptive linguistics, that they should find out what "true" language should be, and educate it to the masses, as opposed to observe normal, everyday language, and determine what rules govern its use without outside interference.
  • Also, he's arrogant. Just because he studies accents doesn't mean he can't think one is inherently superior to others. Just the same way a person who studies insects might have a favorite.
  • He observed that less-than-RP language was strongly tied to social stigma and tightly associated with the lower classes. He asked himself: "simply by talking in more refined ways these people would shed the obvious tie to their background and make improving their life easier; why don't they do it?"
  • If one knows anything about the British class system, the belief was that it was a person's own fault if they were poor or working class - and being born into wealth and privilege simply meant you were inherently better. Higgins thinks of RP-speakers as superior to those who don't speak that way. Arguably the song is used to show him as a Know-Nothing Know-It-All, since his attempts to get Eliza to change her speech patterns yield no results at first.
• Why is Eliza so angry at Higgins after the ball? He hasn't acknowledged her merit at passing as a princess, true, and he hasn't been that nice to her. But both Higgins and Pickering have given Eliza a luxurious life for six months, have taught her refined speech and good behaviour, have introduced her into high society, and most important, have given her the chance for a better future, either by marrying into a rich family or starting her own business and remaining independant. Otherwise she would have been in poverty all her life. I think there's more to be thankful for than to be vengeful for.
  • She's certainly appreciative of that, but hearing Higgins and Pickering congratulate each other shows her that they pulled her out of poverty only to settle a bet and didn't actually care about her well-being. She liked being with them and now thinks they're just going to push her back onto the streets now that they don't need her anymore.
  • Exactly. They're patting each other on the back, and acting like her hard work, development, investment, sacrifices, etc. etc., were nothing. They weren't even acknowledging her a little.
  • Why is she so angry? Because she's basically being ignored for her own efforts. Higgins was a rotten teacher who took months to even get her anywhere, and did nothing but demean her. She only improved once he stopped being a Sadist Teacher, suggesting she and his mother did far more towards her improvement than him. She's basically being treated like she was a show pony or some inanimate object they trotted out for the gentry to admire. And after she was so convincing she fooled people into thinking she was Hungarian royalty, she's back to being treated like lesser than them; being reminded of her old station.
  • In addition to that, the whole setup is a commentary on class politics: Eliza first asked to pay fairly for lessons, only for Higgins to insult her as being lowly and beneath him, and then he made the condition of her getting lessons to improve herself the subject of a bet for his amusement. Having changed the terms so Eliza doesn't feel respected from the off, she'd then browbeaten by Higgins' lousy teaching methods until he's finally forced to try encouraging her instead, when she begins to improve. After the 'by George, she's got it' routine Eliza, Higgins and Pickering are the closest they've been to real friends...but then immediately after the ball when Eliza flawlessly dupes everyone, Pickering and Higgins act as though they were just marionetting her to success and act as though she's a puppet with no mind of her own. (Higgins directly says HE won the bet, ignoring all of Eliza's contributions). Eliza is left feeling as though she was just an impoverished puppet the rich were playing with to amuse themselves, and Higgins' total disinterest over what Eliza will do in the future only adds fuel to this fire. The same thing happens to Eliza's father in the film - Higgins helps elevate him to middle class then leaves him to his own devices, uncaring as to the 'what next' that follows, which Eliza comments on specifically. Simply put, Higgins' arrogance and wealth allows him to set the terms for everyone else, discard them when he's done playing with them and then get confused when they dare to be angry about it.
• Shortly after the scene at Royal Ascot, Pickering remarks that they only have six weeks until the Embassy Ball, which would put it in early August. When Higgins walks home after seeing Eliza at his mother's house, why are the trees bare as if it's winter?
  • Probably a continuity problem.
  • It's London during one of the most horrid periods of pollution in history?
• Why would an embassy ball be hosted at Buckingham Palace? And why would any ball at Buckingham Palace be hosted by non-British royalty?
  • The embassy probably lacks a ballroom, there likely is no place fit to entertain royalty other than royal buildings, and the English are nothing if not gracious hosts.

---