GBS wrote play with "approaching audiences as citizens capable of thought and prompting them to think imaginatively to some purpose" in mind, as Margery Morgan says. And there are plenty for one to think seriously about in Major Barbara.

The most interesting is his conviction that no money is untainted. That's interesting because it means the donations and public fundings the environmentalists take in come from no less than the evil polluters themselves, perhaps feeling, which GBS rightly agreed, as the Salvation Army would that they "...will take money from the Devil himself sooner than abandon the work of Salvation." But GBS also wrote in the preface that while he is okay to accept tainted money, "He must either share the world's guilt or go to another planet." From what I can gather from the preface and play, GBS believed money is the key to solve all the problems we have, hence his mentioning of Samuel Butler and his "constant sense of the importance of money," and his low opinion of Ruskin and Kroptokin, for whom, "law is consequence of the tendency of human beings to oppress fellow humans; it is reinforced by violence." Kropotkin also "provides evidence from the animal kingdom to prove that species which practices mutual aid multiply faster than others. Opposing all State power, he advocates the abolition of states, and of private property, and the transforming of humankind into a federation of mutual aid communities. According to him, capitalism cannot achieve full productivity, for it amis at maximum profits instead of production for human needs. All persons, including intellectuals, should practice manual labor. Goods should be distributed according to individual needs." (Guy de Mallac, The Widsom of Humankind by Leo Tolstoy.)

If GBS wasn't joking, then the following should be one of the most controversial ideas he raised in the preface to the play. I quote: "It would be far more sensible to put up with their vices...until they give more trouble than they are worth, at which point we should, with many apologies and expressions of sympathy and some generosity in complying with their last wishes, place them in the lethal chamber and get rid of them." Did he really mean that if you are a rapist once, you can be free and "put up with," but if you keep getting drunk (a vice), or slightly more seriously, stealing, you should be beheaded?

Shaw can be absolutely captivating even when he is being an evangelist for political philosophies that the twentieth century has proven to be nothing but vehicles for repression and mass murder (Communism - Shaw approved of Lenin even when the evidence showed him to be pure evil). This play-among his best (if you can see the movie with Rex Harrison, do not miss it)- has such brilliant dialogue and sparkling humor that it is easy to forget that one is being preached to. Shaw thinks human evil is due to socially deprived environments. Ergo, pour money into poor neighborhoods and social evils will vanish. Unfortunately for Shaw's argument, poverty and human evil are two different things entirely and only intersect occasionally and coincidently. The poor can be poor due to lack of opportunity or due to a culture of self-destructiveness (illegitmacy, drug/alcohol use, disdain for values that lead to achievement, disdain for skills that lead to steady employability). It is difficult to sustain an argument that the poor in the USA are so due to a lack of opportunity when recent immigrants have pretty much taken the available opportunities and ran with them, rapidly entering the middle classes within a generation of arriving here. Shaw simply cannot believe that anyone would choose to remain poor. Well, they can and do, when getting ahead means putting in 40+ hours a week, and not loafing all day on a street corner in an inebriated/stoned condition. Accepting that fact would have saved millions of lives that were sacrificed in the last century in the attempt to build a perfect "worker's paradise".
Leaving the silly premise behind the play aside, Shaw has crafted a startling piece of theatre and uses his magisterial command of the English language to amuse, provoke, and amaze the audience.

The playwright uncovers the debate about war and pacifism. Shaw also illuminates the poverty industry, and shows that all money is tainted. The play is a vehicle for a debate on philosophies, the burning issues of the day. Shaw shows that the audience can laugh and think, in the same play. Probably Britain's best known playwright, after Shakespeare, Shaw shines in Major Barbara

Bernard Shaw is a great playwright. In this particular play he exposes the shortcomings of English upper classes. They only think of mariage, business, politics, but England is in fact a drunken skipper, a skipper on which every sailor and even the captain are drunk with rum and unable to see the danger coming up and to deal with it. So the skipper is condemned to break on the rocks. England in the same way is condemned to break on the rocks because no one, in the upper classes, thinks beyond their interest. This catastrophe coming up is shown by some kind of supernatural explosion at the end of the play and the members of these upper classes admire the event as being beautiful and they are totally unable to cope. The picture given by Shaw of England is particularly pessimistic. Their is no future and no hope for that country. Along the way he discusses important issues such as the liberation of women within their enslavement and their power is nothing but hypnotism or drowning men in a sea of words and charm. The only sane man in the play is the captain, with an allusion to Whitman, « Captain my captain », who sees the catastrophes coming and is unable to convince his own daughters or their husbands and friends that they have to control the boat if they don't want it to capsize. But does he really want to convince them ?

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

I recently saw the production of this play in Atlanta and I was blown away. This is a fascinating, fast-paced comedy with dark undertones about a bankrupt society. It is set in the late nineteenth/early twentieth c., but the issues turn out to be very contemporary: the question of capitalism, security vs. adventure, gender roles... I recommend it!

This would be an excellent collection to have for anyone looking for a taste of Shaw's basic philosophies about socialism--and of course, a good way of finding out how his writing suits you.

Some thought provoking social statements are made in all four plays, though some of the prefaces might be more informative about the author than the plays themselves. Great witticisms and depsite the sometimes heavy philosophy, the reading is light and quick. The last play, Man And Superman, perhaps his most significant play in terms of philosophy, pure and simple, would be fun reading but the socialist's handbook given at the end would definitely not be everyone's cup of tea, unless they're philosophy students. This can be skipped without spoiling the play though, which contains some of the most excellent dialogue I've come across in a play with philosophical overtones.

All Oscar Wilde and Chesterton lovers would appreciate the epigrams and the witty one-liners. If for nothing else, Shaw is worth reading for his lovely style of execution, the flowing conversations and some uncanny insight.

This should be required reading just for the "Don Juan in Hell" act of Man and Superman --an excerpt "Your friends are all the dullest dogs I know. They are not beautiful: they are only decorated. They are not clean: they are only shaved and starched. They are not dignified: they are only fashionably dressed. They are not educated: they are only college passmen. They are not religious: they are only pewrenters. They are not moral: they are only conventional. They are not virtuous: they are only cowardly...."

One of my science teachers recited this famous speech in the lab one day, just to show off, and I started appreciating Shaw. Funny thing is that of all the playwrights, GBS is the best just to read. Except for Pygmalion and maybe Arms and the Man, most of Shaw's plays are too "talky" to stage well, but read like short stories. If you haven't read them, you are in for a treat.

If we're going to have a voice worthy of critiquing the great master, it might as well be Shaw. For those who have not read any Shaw, he's a wickedly entertaining writer, though a bit high brow at times. This is a book for the Wagnerite and the layman alike, but expect to get a little insulted if you belong to the latter category. As to the philosophies in this little book, just about everyone who likes the Ring has their own unique opinion about its deep political/spiritual meanings, including Shaw. And although everything he writes seems obvious enough to him, I can't say I'm completely convinced by all his ideas. The book is certainly worth reading, however, just to hear the Shaw's elegant take on the musical masterpiece. (also, at least some of his ideas must be right) Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the book is its attack on Gotterdammerung, the beloved finale of the Ring. Shaw argues it is nearly devoid of underlying meaning and is a superficial conclusion to an otherwise philosophically sound work. As a final note, I appreciate the Mark Twain-like ascerbic criticism of society which seems incorrigibly imprinted in Shaw's style. This book is entertaining, and in certain places, profound. I give it four stars. (maybe 5 if he hadn't criticized Brahms!)

About twenty years ago, the BBC World Service introduced me to readings from G. B. Shaw's musical criticisms. The readings showed me that critique is as much an art as the subject of the critique. This pamphlet is a shining example of Shaw's art of criticism. Shaw presents the story, he gives some musical analysis, but most of all he presents the "Ring" in a philosophical and politcal slant that only Shaw could do. I suspect that the philosophy and politics are more Shaw's than Wagner's. Great for thosw who like Wagner and G.B.Shaw. Good for someone new to Der Ring des Nibelungen.

I have read almost all of Shaw's published works which have come within my reach. I see the deterioration in the quality of his work as the aging process set in, and of his defense of such people as Djerjinski and Stalin. When he is profound, he is very profound and when he is off the mark he is way out in zoonieland. This book, fortunately, shows more of his great skill at criticism and assimilation of background data than his equally great skill at polemics. Remember, the compositionof the _Ring_ was an event of the past for him, and he was able to use historical source material. But what caught my attention was that the London newspapers of his own day ran letters trying to reconcile the "Brunhilde problem" in _Gotterdamerung_. All of this was a burning issue to the London intelligentsia. But, to the point: BUY this book because it is HILARIOUS, in the best sense of that word. This is Shaw, maybe not at his level best, but close to it. Learn while you laugh! The ideas propounded in this book have been burned into my memory because I have read them over and over. Read this book if you can appreciate subtle jokes.

This superlative, award winning film adaptation of George Bernard Shaw's play is as delightful today as when it was first filmed, nearly sixty five years ago. This ageless story, based upon greek mythology in which an ivory statue of a maiden, Galatea, is brought to life by the prayers of its sculptor, Pygmalion, features a professor of linguistics, Henry Higgins (Leslie Howard), who takes a cockney flower seller, Eliza Doolittle (Wendy Hiller), and bets that, within a matter of six months, he can turn her into a lady who can pass in high society without betraying her lowly origins.

Leslie Howard, wonderful in the role, is the quintessential Henry Higgins, playing him as an arrogant, aristocratic misogynist whose own mother (Marie Lohr) barely finds him tolerable. Henry makes his bet about his prospective success with Eliza with his friend, the kindly Col. George Pickering (Scott Sunderland), a wealthy gentleman who bankrolls the costs of Eliza's transformation from guttersnipe to royal pretender.

Wendy Hiller is perfectly cast in the role of Eliza, having a certain earthiness about her, which makes her so believable as the cockney upstart. Yet, she has enough of an incandescence about her, so as to make her believable in her transition from gutter to drawing room. Scott Sunderland is wonderful as Col. Pickering, the buffer between Henry and Eliza. Marie Lohr is excellent as Mrs. Higgins, Henry's exasperated mother. The scene in which Eliza has tea with Henry's unsuspecting mother and her guests is one of the funniest on the silver screen. Look also to a wonderful, comedic foray by Wildred Lawson, as Eliza's father, Alfred Doolittle.

All in all, this is a film that has withstood the test of time. The precursor for the musical adaptation "My Fair Lady", Pygmalion reigns supreme. Nominated for four Academy Awards and winning two, this is the definitive adaptation of George Bernard Shaw's play, sharp and witty. Deftly directed by Leslie Howard and Anthony Asquith, it is simply a magnificently acted, comedic film, and one that those who love classic, vintage films will enjoy. Bravo!

This is an enchanting film for which George Bernard Shaw won an Oscar (which I believe he displayed proudly) for best screenplay after adapting the play "Pygmalion." It is true that the movie lacks the grand production values of "My Fair Lady," but it is much closer to the drama that Shaw had in mind. The dialogue is much richer than "My Fair Lady," which still managed to keep much of the language of the play and some of the movie.

Like many of Shaw's plays, it is built around his pet ideas -- here (in a simple form) the notion that class distinctions are not genuine and could be overcome through education. Unlike some of Shaw's plays which read like socialist tracts, this one has very human characters who keep your interest throughout (in contrast to "Major Barabara" which was a rather tedious movie).

For me, Wendy Hiller make a marvelous Eliza Doolittle. Although Leslie Howard is very good (and presumably what Shaw had in mind), it is hard to forget the bluster Rex Harrison -- a great actor himself -- brought to the role of Professor Higgins. Hiller brings a wonderful dignity and pathos to the role of Eliza Doolittle. The rest of the cast is very good and the sets are very authentically set in Edwardian England.

This is definite buy if you like Shaw, theatre in general, good movies from the 30s, or want to see a richer version of "My Fair Lady."

It started out as a play by George Bernard Shaw based on the Greek myth of a man who created a statue and then fell in love with it. The play, which was a spoof on the British upper class, was an immediate success and several movie versions followed. This 1938 version, in black and white, was nominated for four academy awards in 1939 and won an Oscar for best screenplay. Later, it was adapted to the musical hit, "My Fair Lady." The rest, as they say, is history. But Pygmalion should certainly not be forgotten.

The cast is excellent. Leslie Howard is perfect as Henry Higgins, the professor of dialects who transforms a flower girl into a lady. And Wendy Hiller is sensational as Eliza Doolittle. There's a certain regal freshness and her British authenticity comes across beautifully. Even though "the rain in Spain" is spoken, rather than sung, it still keeps the same quality. And there is music throughout as background, lively original music created especially for the film. The supporting cast was excellent too. I particularly loved the performance by Wilfrid Larson as Eliza's father. The film moved fast and kept me totally captivated. The costumes were wonderful and the timing for the comedic moments perfect. I found myself laughing out loud in places and smiling to myself throughout. Certainly, this film has stood the test of time and even though it will always be compared to the musical we all know and love, I must say that Pygmalion can definitely stand on its own. Give yourself a treat and check it out. Highly recommended.

The play Mrs Warren's Profession was one of Shaws plays unpleasent and he wrote it at a time when many people shyed away from the mojority of political and social issues of the time. Shaw had an ability however to lay down the facts of many things that were happening in society and he often gave the reader or audience a sense of responsibilty that many of the people involved were receiving. In Mrs Warren's Profession he focusses on the hidden world of prostitution without ever mentioning the word or even spelling it out to the reader/audience. With this he is able to descibe the effects it has without crudly embarking on a course of discrimination. All in all it is a powerful piece which shows how women had had influence over the world in all aspects.

The play Mrs. Warren's Profession was good, the main charcter was not Mrs. Warren but her daughter Vivie who goes back in and forth in every act between love and hate for her mother who has been a prostitue and ran some brothels. Vivie is convienced her mother could have made a better choice for herself than prostitution. Mrs. Warren has kept Vivie out of the brothels all of her life and gave her the best in education and up bring. But even though she has done all of that Vivie is not content on being there any longer with her mother. End the end Vivie leaves her mother and Mrs. Warren holds her self together unappoligic for anything she has done. This play was a great example of how women had two choices at the time the play was set in marriage or prostitution which were both forms of slavery. Shaw knew how hard it was for women in society and wanted more for them, than just mother hood and marriage.

Shaw does a wonderful job at showing her "job" without having to tell you. It gives it more of an off limits feel for the job and also makes the listener feel like they are there. Powerful and compelling.

The worst thing I found was Shaw's ending epilogue after the Pygmalion. He went too far, too deep and too preachy in his imagination of how things were to turn out. His lengthy preface to Major Barbara may well reflect sentiments at the turn of the century, but he never looked at the question "whether he imagined the impoverished becoming like him or him becoming like the impoverished" when he talked idealistically against the tyranny of poverty. He showed no comprehension of basic economics, social evolution nor human nature. Had he lived longer, he might have seen it in the collapse of communism in eastern Europe. That is not to say Shaw was espousing communism, and it can be argued that the communism was an imperfect implementation of a perfect solution. The same then can be said of a lot of other things, including Christianity, the Church, the Salvation Army, nationhood, law enforcement as well as the judiciary. None set out to commit the sins they did. At the end of the day, helping feed a single individual may cause no more harm than helping no individuals but sitting down and espousing fine rhetorics and theories and ideals which lead to establishment of institutions modelled after them which affect thousands instead.

This was, all in all, a charming little book. I loved the Pygmalion and the manipulative male lead, Professor Higgins. Major Barbara, on the other hand, was as boring as could be. The preface? Don't even bother reading. It was absolute boredom, and completely unaffective on the reading of Major Barbara. The Pygmalion, while I did not particularly enjoy the epilogue (I'm a romantic), was very clever and yes, probably the real aspect of how things turn out. So, all being said, read the book! It is a delightful little sample of Shaw's work.

Shaw masters satire in Pymalion his play with a double edged sword. A superficial examination of the play reveals it to be a self-rightoues lesson in grammar. But a deeper inspection shows it tobe a toungue in cheek comedy (albeit a critical one) that reveals much about the British society of the time (particularly linguistically speaking). Henry Higgin's unabashed condescending attitude provide many laughs while Eliza's emotion filled responses are also humorous and no less insightful. The prolougue although irritating to most, gives the play a unique voice and the epilogue although considered by many to be a literary fallacy says true to Shaw's style. I have only one complaint about this book that I can rant on about to no end, that fact that he say's English is the language of the Bible. Is English the lanuguage of Crime and Punishment or Metamorphosis because it was translated in English? Please, don't insult us. But aside from that it is a Brilliant play!

The play, My Fair Lady, was a delightful comedy

It's loverly, loverly, loverly! I couldn't stop reading it. I've seen the movie aout a gazillion times, and I have three recordings of "My Fair Lady" (The Original Broadway Cast and London Cast, both with Julie Andrews, and the movie Soundtrack), and the book is just what I needed. I could often quote the movie, and as my friend Mishi said, I'm "a perfect Eliza!", but the book's just wonderful. It's going to help me do this on stage one day . . .

George Bernard Shaw takes the title for this play from the opening life of Virgil's epic poem the "Aeneid," which begins "Of arms and the man I sing." Virgil glorified war and the heroic feats of Aeneas on the battlefield. However, Shaw's purpose in this play is to attack the romantic notion of war by presenting a more realistic depiction of war, devoid of the idea that such death and destruction speaks to nobility. Still, "Arms and the Man" is not an anti-war drama, but rather a satirical assault on those who would glorify the horrors or war.

Shaw develops an ironic contrast between two central characters. The play begins with accounts of the glorious exploits of Major Sergius Saranoff, a handsome young Bulgarian officer, in a daring cavalry raid, which turned the war in favor of the Bulgarians over the Serbs. In contrast, Captain Bluntschil, a professional soldier from Switzerland, acts like a coward. He climbs up to a balcony to escape capture, he threatens a woman with a gun, and he carries chocolates rather than cartridges because he claims the sweets are more useful on the battlefield.

In the eyes of Raina Petkoff, the young romantic idealist who has bought into the stories of battlefield heroism, Saranoff is her ideal hero. However, as the play proceeds, we learn more about this raid and that despite its success, it was a suicidal gesture that should have failed. Eventually Saranoff is going to end up dead if he continues to engage in such ridiculous heroics. Meanwhile, we realize that Bluntshcil has no misconceptions about the stupidity of war and that his actions have kept him alive.

"Arms and the Man" is an early play by Shaw, first performed in 1894, the same year he wrote "Mrs. Warren's Profession." The ending is rather tradition for comedies of the time, with all the confusion between the lovers finally getting cleared up and everybody paired up to live happily ever after. The choice of a young woman as the main character, who ultimately rejects her romantic ideals to live in the real world, is perhaps significant because serving in the army and going to war is not going to happen. Consequently, her views are not going to be colored by questions of courage in terms of going to war herself. I also find it interesting that this play understands the horrors of war given that it was the horrors of World War I that generally killed the romantic notion of war in Britain.

This particular volume offers up "A Facsimile of the Holograph Manuscript," which gives Shavian scholars a chance to look over the original manuscript and think deep thoughts over changes and corrections. Certainly of interest to any devote of Shaw, but those looking for some new critical insight will probably find the bones of this one have been picked clean long ago.

An intesting book about the story of the narrow minded puritans fighting back against the british army ,once a great powerful one. A great book espescilly when the army are made out to be fools. A well written book of life in 1777.