Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Faculty of Arts
Department of English
and American Studies
Eliška Hulcová
2016
I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently,
using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.
……………………………………………..
Author’s signature
I would like to thank my supervisor Mgr. Tomáš Kačer, Ph.D. for his support, my
mother for being who she is, my partner Marek for his patience, and Láďa and Tasci for
being wonderful friends.
Table of Contents
Introduction………………………………………………………………………….…1
Characters……………………………………………………………………………….7
Adam………………………………………………………………………………… ..10
Evelyn…………………………………………………………………………………..14
Limits of art…………………………………………………………………………….23
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………...…29
Notes……………………………………………………………………………………31
Works Cited…………………………………………………………………………….32
Shrnutí………………………………………………………………………………….35
Summary………………………………………………………………………………..36
Introduction
Transformation stories have been told and narrated for ages. The most obvious
inspiration is the lives of people, which eventually became generalized and included in
archetypal stories, such as legends or fairy tales with characters, who were frequently
said to play with people’s lives. Ordinary mortals were objects of their experiments,
bets or jealousy. The pattern keeps repeating as the people cannot be prevented from
making the same mistakes and behaving the same way over and over again. One kind of
the archetypal story is the transformation of one person into another with George
Bernard Shaw’s Pygmalion being one of the modern versions of an archetypal tale,
which examines the topic in depth and explores the social impacts on the transformed
person. It was probably Shaw’s play that became one of the sources of inspiration for
Neil LaBute, the American playwright, and his play the shape of things.
In the thesis, Neil LaBute’s play is perceived as the focal point, where two
directions meet: the first one is a comparison with G. B. Shaw’s play Pygmalion with
the two main characters – Liza and Professor Higgins – playing the main role in the first
part of the thesis, and the general concept of the function of art with attention paid to
LaBute’s the shape of things. The thesis should highlight the parallels between LaBute’s
and Shaw’s plays with attention being paid to the characters of the shape of things and
to answer some questions raised about the role of art linked to manipulation and
transformation. At the beginning, I would like to present Neil LaBute as a writer and the
concept of the shape of things, in which I mention several responses to LaBute’s work
and the topics of his plays, which are restated in his play. The next chapter deals with G.
Furthermore, I attempt to try to draw some parallels between Evelyn, the main female
character in the shape of things, and Professor Higgins, the main male character in
1
Pygmalion. I also analyze Adam, who is the gender-twisted Liza; and I pay special
attention to the settings and language of the play as it is an important feature of the play
as well, therefore I analyze its function and purpose of the specific style of LaBute’s
writing. The last part of the thesis deals with limits of art, conceptual art and the
Neil LaBute was born in Detroit, Michigan on March 19, 1963 (Wood xi). He is
one of the most controversial and successful contemporary playwrights with his
legendary plays the shape of things, Fat Pig and In the Company of Men. The American
Theatre magazine sees him as the “American Aesop, a mad moral fabulist serving stiff
tonic for our country’s sin-sick souls” (Istel 39). LaBute’s plays seem to find the worst
in people and this is probably the reason why he is often labeled as an outspoken
misanthrope and obscene misogynist but, as Rachel Weisz, the actress playing Evelyn
in the shape of things, points out “he’s been called misogynist, but he is writing about
misogyny”1 (Istel 40). LaBute is interested in “the human canvas” (Lehman 75) and
likes “to remove the safety net” (Day). He examines the general and most topical
culture, the absence of one’s true self in the body, an unstable and uncertain self,
finding the position of self in society and the relation to it, compassion, the oddness of
culture and doubt. However, “his are ironic, witty plays, morality tales, which as
[LaBute] has said, are either handbooks for behavior or admonitory stories depending
on the audience’s own predilections” (Bigsby 12). Therefore, it always depends on the
audience how they interpret what they see for themselves – the purpose of the play is to
2
make the audience immerse in their thoughts and start to think about their life, choices
and behavior.
LaBute is also often compared to Harold Pinter, David Mamet, Edward Bond or
Sam Shepard or, as he claims, the generation of the Angry Young Men movement
because “[the British] identify with words, and my plays are stuffed with language. I
also seem to reinforce the attitude towards Americans” (Jordan 30). Having mentioned
Pinter, Christopher Bigsby makes an apt comparison saying that “LaBute disturbs in the
same way as Harold Pinter, describing a familiar world but one in which motives are
often obscured, relationships seldom what they appear” (8). This is almost like a
summary of the topics of the 20th century drama – it may look ‘ordinary’ but a
Hemingway-related topic of the iceberg theory seems appropriate here: the most
LaBute admits that despite the cruel surface and presentation, he never lost hope
in humanity and men in particular (Istel 41). However, the ultimate cause of the nature
of his plays may be the relation with his father with a psychoanalytical touch because
“he had the power to hurt with words” (Jordan 30) and LaBute confessed that “writing
is a safe vacuum for me because I’m not saying those horrible things to someone’s face.
[…] I feel I have a kind of bravado in my writing which I don’t have in my life” (Jordan
30). Trusting the paper when dealing with psychological issues is a kind of therapy and
in this respect, LaBute resembles the main character of his play, the shape of things, as
works are “both a response to cultural standards and expectations of masculinity and a
critique of a way men (and women) respond to these often stereotypic expectations”
(38). There is certainly no single and right point of view to interpret and explain
3
LaBute’s plays because men and women perceive the issues differently and adopt
different stances. Boudreau takes a stand as a woman, of course, and claims that in
LaBute’s plays, “women become the enemy to male bonding, one of the few arenas
(even if it proves to be false) that men can collectively define what it means to be a
male” (Boudreau 38). Nevertheless, in general terms, LaBute reveals “the feral snarl
the shape of things is, in short, a modern version of Pygmalion, in which Adam,
the overweight and not very attractive guard at a museum, is seduced by Evelyn, an art
student, who makes him a thesis for his project. Adam is not aware of it, however. He is
maneuvered into being an object of art and exhibited without knowing until the very last
minute. Adam and Evelyn meet at the museum, where Adam works as a guard to pay
off his student loans. Evelyn stands in front of a statue, whose private parts are covered
with a leaf, and holds a can of spray paint in her hand. Adam, who is very shy and
latent, attempts to discourage her from destroying the statue with paint but she resists
and steps over the line – this action may be seen as the actual beginning of the play and
actions that Evelyn commences in order to reach her target and fulfill her intentions.
Compared with the movie, it is a slightly different situation. The movie starts with an
announcement said by a soft female voice that invites the visitors to see the
documentary film on the works of Alex Katz, who is, incidentally, an American
figurative artist (00:00:20) and then continues like the beginning of the play above.
Being a dexterous manipulator, Evelyn induces Adam to undergo plastic surgery, lose
weight, break contact with his friends and eventually become the object of her project.
In the final – and very powerful – scene of the play, Evelyn holds a speech about her
project, in which she reveals everything; Adam is confronted with reality and the real
4
purpose of his transformation. We may say that the play is about “manipulative nature
intentions of the main characters. The play starts with the incident in the museum when
Evelyn wants to spray paint an exhibited sculpture but it is not her real intention, as the
audience learns in the course of the play. The Adam project, which the audience learns
about at the end of the play, lasts eighteen weeks (LaBute 118) and starts when Evelyn
says: “i don’t like the way you wear your hair” and advises Adam to use less styling gel
(LaBute 12). She is determined to make him the art project from the very beginning of
the play. As John Istel aptly summarizes, “in deft, witty scenes, Adam slowly
transforms himself (or is he sculpted?) into a campus hunk under Evelyn’s hip
ministrations, much to the shock and amusement of his friends” (Istel 39)
In this chapter, I would like to present ancient Pygmalion, the way this idea
influenced LaBute and various interpretations of the myth in the 20th and 21st century.
In one of his scarce interviews, LaBute developed his thoughts about the original
something. But whole Pygmalion is driven by a kind of love, there’s far less of
that here because… love is something other than the figure that’s being
5
The first appearance of Pygmalion can be found in Ovid’s Metamorphoses and
tells the story about prince Pygmalion, who carved a sculpture of a woman but felt
hopelessly in love with it. Venus showed mercy on him and transformed it into a
woman – Galatea. The myth has been retold and re-narrated many times2 but Neil
LaBute was so intrigued by the story that he focused on the feminist aspect of the myth
and taking the gender to a different level: Galatea being a man, in fact. As the voice of
the feminist movement became clearer in the 20th century, twisting the deep-rooted
concept was more likely to happen. The idea of transformation of a person occurred in
the minds of many writers, though Graeme Simsion’s The Rosie Project, a recent witty
variation on this topic, for instance, ranks among the less serious ones. The main
character of the book, Don Tillman, is a genetics professor, who is very particular about
his habits and lifestyle and meets his exact opposite. Funny moments are based on the
fact that he creates “The Wife Project”, in which he defines and describes his ideal
partner in a perfectly scientific way, yet he eventually chooses Rosie, who does not
meet any stated criteria. In order to achieve his goal of having a perfect wife, he
prepares sophisticated tests, which Rosie somehow manages to use to her advantage.
epistolary novel about manipulation with people’s feelings and emotions. Yet Neil
LaBute examines the complex topic in rather serious terms and does not hesitate to take
a step further. He employs his favorite topics such as manipulation, morality, crossing
the lines, violence, misogyny and exploitation as a foundation for the development of
George Bernard Shaw was the first playwright who wrote the modern version of
Pygmalion, in which the gender roles were preserved (Higgins as Pygmalion and Liza
as Galatea) but he was attracted to the feelings of the female character, the patriarchal
6
world raised no major voice here. This aspect is even more visible in the musical
version of the play, My Fair Lady. Liza represents the counterpart of archetypal Galatea
– she is aware of her dignity and is not afraid to fight for her rights. As Eck points out,
Higgins “never really cares about the content of [Liza’s] words. He begins to shape
Liza’s speech and manner until she passes as a duchess” (Eck 15). This action parallels
to LaBute’s shape of things, in which Adam has to pass as an artwork at the exhibition
In the shape of things, the 21st century Pygmalion, the gender roles remain the
same and Adam is seduced by Eve(lyn) and “an innocent is about to be transformed”
(Bigsby 84). LaBute made an attempt to perform not only a transformation of the main
character in the play, but also to extract social background of G. B. Shaw’s Pygmalion,
travel with it in time and create a little what-if piece. The two plays have a lot in
common and share a number of key concepts. As Christopher Bigsby puts it, “there is a
shape to things. It is simply not that of which others are aware” (83). Neil LaBute
admits the fact he was inspired by G. B. Shaw’s play when he openly refers to
Pygmalion in Adam’s words, when he thanks Evelyn for ‘educating’ him: “thank you…
(cockney) … ‘enry ‘iggins” (LaBute 20). However, Evelyn is not aware of the existence
of such a play and as she hates being confused and ignorant of certain knowledge, she
Characters
Although the play has four characters (Adam, Evelyn, Philip and Jenny), this
thesis analyzes only Adam and Evelyn in depth because they are crucial for the process
of transformation. It is not that Philip and Jenny are not important in the play at all but
they play only supporting roles and serve primarily like evidence of the consequences of
7
Evelyn’s deeds. At first, I would like to provide a short introduction to both characters
and introduce the concept of the twisted gender before analyzing the individual
characters in detail.
student, who feels alienated from society and may be perceived as the “good boy”.
Evelyn is an immoral and cruel graduate student of art, rebellious to society: the “bad
girl” – in a nutshell. In the course of the play, the audience find out that there is no clear
distinction between good and evil. The characters of Adam and Evelyn are clearly
inspired by their biblical archetypes and Neil LaBute does not deny it; he admits he
wanted to avoid showing it to the audience directly (Istel 40). In the film version of the
play, the allusion to the Bible is apparent with Evelyn wearing a T-shirt with an apple
on it (00:03:05). The apple thus represents temptation, the proverbial forbidden fruit,
which demarcates the beginning of the fall from innocence. LaBute probably
emphasizes one of the main topics of the play on purpose: the gender reverse.
Originally, the biblical Eve was born from Adam’s rib but through the course of time,
she became emancipated and LaBute presents the 21st century Eve, who twists the idea
of subordination to a man. Evelyn plays the role of the seducer like her biblical
counterpart, yet she has ulterior motives. It is Evelyn, in fact, who mentions the gender
aspect at the beginning of the play. Despite the seemingly leading role Evelyn plays, it
is Adam, who says the first sentence and takes control over the discourse, which
signifies a position of power a man should assume according to all the stereotypical
concepts. He warns her “… you stepped over the line. miss? umm, you stepped over
…”3 (LaBute 1). At the very beginning of the play, it is an attempt to demarcate the
borders, which is performed by Adam. He is the one who is in charge of the venue,
knows the environment and should protect the exhibits. However, Evelyn strikes back,
8
when she says “i know. it’s ‘ms.’” (LaBute 1), by which she immediately affirms her
gender and marital status, although it is not necessary and Adam did not mean to start to
talk about this topic. By this, LaBute probably wants to point out the obsession with
gender nowadays; even a harmless joke may be taken seriously and result into serious
consequences. Therefore, Evelyn avoids being manipulated into the gender role Adam
ascribed to her with his masculine point of view of the world. Then she gets back to
Adam’s question and starts to show she is allegedly the stronger one from the
beginning: “i meant to. step over…” (LaBute 1). When Adam objects, Evelyn answers:
“i know. that’s why i tried it . . .” (La Bute 1) The borders here are not virtual, it is a
velvet rope, which separates the sculpture Evelyn wants to spray on. Christopher Bigsby
sees the rope as something “which keeps life and art at arm’s length” (83) and Adam
also mentions the need to keep lines it in his final dialogue, when he discovers the truth
about the ‘Adam project’, when he says that “there’s gotta be a line. for art to exist there
has to be a line out there somewhere. a line between really saying something and just…
planned as if she had a structure of her thesis (which is Adam, as it is revealed at the
end of the play). Her character is typical for Neil LaBute’s plays, as it is accurately
summarized by Bigsby, who claims that “if some of LaBute’s characters never seem to
have become acquainted with decency, others […] precisely exemplify that sense of the
thin line between civility and betrayal, genuine feeling and calculation, concern for
Adam’s low self-esteem and the lack of confidence work in Evelyn’s favor: he is
intrigued that she shows interest in him and is willing to undergo gradual transformation
in order to take her fancy. In the scene described above, he fails to perform the
9
authoritative role he has as a guard in the museum, does not want to confront Evelyn (as
she may lose interest in him) and leaves the responsibility someone else saying “i’d let
next shift talk to you, kick you out or whatever” (LaBute 3). Evelyn’s twisted gender
role is clearly demonstrated on the fact she likes to use dirty words: “i was thinking
books and films of minority interest, myths that have survived only in distorted
form, words that no longer mean what they once did, indeed words whose
In her article for New York Times Magazine, Pat Jordan cleverly observes that
“LaBute’s ugliest characters are often the prettiest men” (30) and Paul Rudd, who
played Adam at the premiere and also in the film, adds that “Neil is fascinated by the
handsome frat boys because they have this simmering rage” (30). Here starts LaBute’s
little game of what-if, in which he switches the gender perspective and devises the
character of Evelyn, which has all the traits of the frat boys mentioned above.
Adam
voluntarily gets a tattoo with Evelyn’s initials (E.A.T), which may be, as Brenda
Boudreau points out, “obvious symbolism” (Boudreau 52) but also “the threat that
Evelyn is not eating into his flesh [a reference to the play, when Evelyn says these
10
words], but she is eating away his masculinity” (Boudreau 52), his masculinity is
destroyed at the end. Neil LaBute wants the audience to believe that Adam is the abused
and exploited character but this may not be the whole truth – it is a matter of
change in clothing and losing weight but the question whether his actions are successful
remains unanswered – the end of the play does not provide any satisfactory
denouement. After the transformation, he looks like he is a model from the cover of
Men’s Health but he is disappointed and sad in the end as the love he desired remains
unrequited, although he has been given “a systematic makeover” (LaBute 119). The
significant moment occurs at the very end of the play when he “pulls on his old jacket,
huddling there on the ground” (LaBute 118) but it is allegedly too big for him. In this
respect, he is the essential male version of Liza Doolittle from Pygmalion: he does not
belong anywhere now. Although he may be accepted by more people due to his
appearance, he is stuck between two worlds and starts to resemble Evelyn in some
respects:
As Adam becomes more desirable so he accretes power and with power seems to
he conforms to a model of the desirable the greater the license he feels able to
LaBute uses hints to show that Adam is not purely Evelyn’s creation – despite
the fact that Evelyn as a character has a different opinion – and he did not know or
realize anything. Throughout the play, he performs irony and mock-serious utterances,
in which he demonstrates that he is fully aware of what is happening like in the moment
11
when he tells Evelyn “you are dangerously close to owning me” (LaBute 40) but is
afraid of the whole truth; irony helps him to demean what he fears to say. In fact, he has
reached his aim: to be accepted by the society but at the same time, he also wants to
remain an individual. However, this is not possible. The appearance is crucial and
“body-image would not have such a profound effect on individuals if they did not
expect their bodies to be malleable and controllable in order to adopt culturally and
his appearance. At this point, he also conforms to the rules set by fashion magazines
such as Glamour or Cosmopolitan, which play the roles of social norms by showing
beautiful people because “physical beauty is commonly linked to ‘good’ meanings such
as social acceptance, fame, success, and moral goodness” (Jobsky 10). They outline the
lifestyle, right clothes, food and relationships people have to have in order to be fully
integrated in contemporary society, they decide who is socially acceptable and who is
not integral part of the social bubble anymore, they support irrational obsession with
The magazines are full of before-and-after, do-and-don’t articles, who praise the
transformations from Ugly Betties into Angelina Jolies, and, more recently, from
Homer Simpsons into David Beckhams as well. These are the transformation from fat
and not handsome men into metro- or lumbersexuals because “slimness is identified as
indicative for ‘bad’ personality traits such as laziness, lacking discipline, unwillingness
to conform, and inability to manage the body” (Jobsky 10). Evelyn – maybe being
unaware of it – uses the language of these magazines as well: in her final speech, she
12
presents an old photo of Adam saying “this in a ‘before’ picture” (LaBute 118) and
using the language of the fashion dictate, she “reshapes [Adam] according to a
particular paradigm” (Bigsby 91), which is the shallow and untrue paradigm she fights
against. In Jobsky’s words, “the mainstream ‘ideal-image’ shows thin, tight, toned , and
almost hairless bodies. […] The face ought to be symmetrical, unmarked and
The texts – and photos in particular – in these types of magazines are uninterested in
moral or personal qualities. Unlike Evelyn in particular, it is them who might be the
sculptors and spin doctors of society; they are implementing thoughts of what is good
and bad, demarcating the lines and limits. However, what has been perceived as
something associated with women only is slowly becoming the matter of men as well.
As Boudreau points out, “while the class position gives [Adam] the time and freedom to
the performativity of masculinity (and, hence, its vulnerability)” (38). Boudreau also
observes the lack of masculinity in contemporary society, which is rooted in the play:
“the shape of things literalizes how the male body has become the focal point of cultural
anxieties over the loss of masculine power” (38). For Adam, identity seems to be a
concern, yet he is willing to yield. Evelyn supports the magazine-related idea when she
asks the question in her final speech: “how many here [in the auditorium] can say that
they have never looked at their significant other and/or a business associate and sand
‘they’re perfect, they’re great except for just one thing (LaBute 120).
Adam is on the verge of a big transition between his two selves, two identities
but “divergent perception of actual, ought, and ideal self-image can lead to
discrepancies and feelings of discomfort, failure and disappointment” (Jobsky 6). His
friend Phillip does not show any mercy for him and, being shocked by the first stage of
13
Adam’s transformation. In the middle of the play, Adam starts to show symptoms of
what the society now sees as the behavior of abused women but not many research
projects about abusing men have been performed. When Phillip meets Adam with a
bandage on his nose, he understands that he probably had a cosmetic surgery but does
Adam behaves like one of the mistreated women and uses the same arguments when he
Evelyn
Evelyn plays the role of an archetypal Eve, who tempts and seduces Adam using
art instead of an apple. She starts slowly but surely and becomes more demanding in the
end when “she invites trust in order to betray it” (Bigsby 83). Evelyn is a master of
be hateful and deceitful. I think they have the capacity for very good, as well” (Bigsby
81). Although Evelyn never orders Adam what to do, she uses little inconspicuous hints
that should serve as guidance in his process of self-transformation, Adam is “the granite
block about to be shaped by the sculptress” (Bigsby 84). He is fully aware of the
transformation of his body and himself, yet he does not know the real purpose and
14
Evelyn’s intentions; he argues that he hates running, eating better, lifting and he does it
only because she suggested it (LaBute 19) but she counters: “you shouldn’t do
something you don’t wanna do” (LaBute 19). However, he is taken by surprise, he
might have anticipated a different reaction and replies that “i’m doing it for you”
(LaBute 20). Evelyn is satisfied and adopts a stance, which may be compared to a
relationship of a master and a nice obedient Labrador, when she says “i gave you a
couple of ideas and you’re changing your entire life. i’m very proud of you” (LaBute
20). Evelyn is “no less the moral force in so far as she raises the principal moral issues
in the play even as, in her role as an artist, she denies any responsibility beyond a
commitment to her art” (Bigsby 81). However, Adam is not aware of the fact that he is
in the process of being ‘sculpted’ because Evelyn wants to make him an object of art.
Evelyn also connects masculinity and sexuality, which makes Adam even more
insecure. There are some indications in the text that Adam is not a womanizer in the bed
and Evelyn utilizes the situation in order to lower his self-confidence more; she
blackmails him through sex. However, her speech at the end of the play may be self-
pitiful as she wants to explain to Adam why she did the project: “everything I did made
you a more desirable person, adam. people began to notice you… take interest in you. i
Having mentioned that the setting of the film is not in the Midwest but Mercy
college in California, the word mercy is rather symptomatic for the play – it is Evelyn,
who mentions it in her exhibition speech several times, although she is probably the last
person to be linked to mercy at the end of the play. At first, she mentions that she “[is]
at [audience’s] mercy,” which “is fine, i have been my entire academic life – at
someone’s mercy, that is – which reaches back to when i was five. so be it… that’s the
system and one person can’t change it…” (LaBute 117). LaBute employs the irony
15
again because she now tells more about her private life to the audience consisting of
strangers than her boyfriend Adam, with whom she had an intimate relationship. Yet
Evelyn takes the intimacy issue further. At the end of the play, in the grand finale, when
she reveals her shady intentions, she confides in the audience and tells them the story
about her engagement as if they were her best friend: “i was given an engagement ring
two days ago and i haven’t answered the guy yet… so i wanted to do it this evening”
(LaBute 117).
Evelyn is obsessed with crossing the lines and breaking the rules as well as what
can be seen as a scientific approach to her work – as if she speaks about an experiment
with white lab mice, which never knows it is the object of research and experiments,
with all the necessary evidence, materials, sources and data, Adam is her “creation”
(LaBute 120):
the exhibit itself will give you many first-hand examples of my efforts, some
data. […] however, the hair, the glasses, the excessive amount of weight, offered
a number of physical areas that made him unique and perfect for this project
(LaBute 119)
LaBute highlights it in his stage directions: when Evelyn instructs him to “take [the
jacket] off for a second”, “adam follows her orders” (LaBute 14) and it repeats in the
following act after Adam and Evelyn kiss: “[Adam] looks around self-consciously”
(LaBute 17). LaBute’s notes are austere and scarce but by describing Adam’s behavior
16
repeatedly, he assumed it is a necessary description of the main male character’s
actions.
Yet Evelyn also has the ‘lighter’ side. Although the play ends with Adam
watching the video at the exhibition, disappointed and depressed, we may ask the
question what happens with Evelyn. Despite her utterance that she has “gotta hook up
with some guys from the department” (LaBute 135), it may not be true. After having
revealed her intentions, the horrible truth behind her actions, it is highly probable that
nobody would like to join her at the reception – she has made a life-changing decision
as well. From this point on, she may be perceived as a manipulative and treacherous
woman, which results in losing her friends – just like Adam. However, they are not on
the same level, Adam will be always seen as the seduced and innocent one but the story
is not as black and white as it looks. Evelyn must be aware of the consequences of her
deeds, she is a clever woman, but her soul of an artist is willing to sacrifice her social
life and the fact that she is going to be expelled from university for art, or at least what
she considers art. She surrenders to Adam’s reproach but even if she discovered she
was not right at the end of the play, she would never admit it.
and they show many similar or rather identical features. As John Robin Baitz puts it,
“Neil LaBute, like Mr Shaw, has of course, a very big heart. […] Both are fierce
moralists with gimlet eyes and lots of questions. Both are troublemakers, both tortured
by questions of sex, virtue and goodness” (57). Evelyn and Higgins do not apprehend
why the people around them see their doings as something immoral or wrong in general.
They assume they have noble and dignified reasons, which give them the right to
17
perform actions at their own will regardless of other people; they explain their behavior
using higher law and the fact they are researchers – be it linguistics or art. Evelyn
She mentions it in her final speech: “it does mark the beginning of my systematic
makeover, or ‘sculpting’, if you will, of my two very pliable materials of choice: the
human flesh and the human will” (LaBute 119). She pleads she was assigned some
special homework – although the audience never learns about who was this higher law.
“i knew i’d been given a tall order. ‘change the world.’ so, i decided to do the next best
thing, which was change someone’s world. […] one person changes, and then another,
and then, well, you get it… crude but effective” (LaBute 118). The last three words in
particular sound like they were copied from some Nazi speech in WWII. She is like a
social engineer of the 1940s, who does not see the sick aspect of her deeds – or, if she
sees it, she does not admit that there is something rotten. Adam pays attention to this
aspect in his final speech when he says “you are about two inches away from using
babies to make lamp shades and calling it ‘furniture’. (beat). look, i know they call it the
‘art scene,’ but that’s not all it should make. a scene” (LaBute 133). Moreover, she
thinks that she has done “little more […] than everyone else does who tries to modify
the appearance and person to those they live with or alongside whom they work, though
Both Evelyn and Higgins show the traits of people suffering from Asperger
syndrome when they bear the stamp of having difficulties when speaking to people. As
Bigsby noted, “[LaBute’s] characters frequently lack something more than the tact
required for social living. They lack a concern for the consequences of their actions,
treat life as a game in which their own needs take precedence” (8). Evelyn and Higgins
behave offensively and tyrannically in order to achieve their aims at any cost. The
18
purpose of their manners is rather clear: to attract the other sex but each character uses
different methods. Henry Higgins wants “the streets to be strewn with the bodies of men
shooting themselves for [Eliza’s] sake” (Shaw). Neither Evelyn, nor Higgins realize the
moral aspect of the manipulation they are performing. When Higgins is accused of
walking over Liza and abusing her, he swiftly denies it: “I never had the slightest
intention of walking over anyone. All I propose is that we should be kind to this poor
girl. We must help her to prepare and fit herself for her new station of life” (Shaw). He
does not understand what Mrs Pearce and Colonel Pickering desire. Higgins and Evelyn
are shockingly provoking but they do not really think through the consequences of their
deeds. They are not afraid to call the objects of their interest ‘it’, depraving them of
their humanity and dignity as people – as if they have absolutely no rights. In her speech
at the exhibition, Evelyn justifies her activity by saying that “the piece itself – him – is
untitled since i think, i hope, that it will mean something different to each of you and,
frankly, anyone who sees it. His own name, however, is quite apropos” (LaBute118).
Evelyn also avoids using names when she tells the story of how she met Adam for the
i first spotted my chosen base material… it’s so funny not to use names! sorry,
but a lawyer actually told me I had to say that, ‘base material’… on january 9 th,
the fifth day of winter semester, as i was actively pursuing another set of ‘base
the shape of things may be seen as a battle of sexes but the winner is missing.
Higgins and Evelyn are determined to perform their plans from the very
beginning of both plays, yet only Liza is aware about the transformation unlike Adam,
19
who remains unconscious of the extent of Evelyn’s manipulation until the bitter end.
Higgins expresses his intention at the very beginning: “In three months, I could pass
that girl off as a duchess at an ambassador’s garden party. I could even get her a place
as a lady’s maid or shop assistant, which requires better English” (Shaw). Higgins tries
to change Liza from the inside and outside: if he changes her speech he is interested in,
he must also perform another metamorphosis – to change her appearance. These two
features must be linked together as they are very closely connected and the English
language is very particular about social classes and groups. Like Evelyn, Higgins is
obsessed with perfection – or at least, what they see as perfection, which is – speaking
of Pygmalion and the shape of things – closely linked to the obsession with truth:
Evelyn wants to reveal it in art and Higgins is trying very hard to conceal it. As Evelyn
says, “i don’t like art that isn’t true” (LaBute 8) but the ending of the play is the
contradiction to her words. She cannot judge and decide what art is the true one,
although she sees herself as an authority, although for her “truth, like art, changes with
The settings of the shape of things is important for the overall purport of the play
as well. It is set in a Midwestern town, which LaBute knows from his childhood, and it
allowed him to
20
suggesting that the casual cruelties of his Midwestern characters might be
325).
However, in the film version of the play, the college has a name: Mercy College, which
is, as Christopher Bigsby points out, “an irony […] in a work in which mercy is
precisely not what is on offer” (82). Mercy College is located in California and for
LaBute, it makes better sense because “people […] visit high-price surgeons […] and
where sculpting of body and mind are equally an investment and a way of life” (Bigsby
Music plays an important role in the play and the movie as well. Originally, the
soundtrack for the play was provided by The Smashing Pumpkins (Istel 39) but it is
Elvis Costello, who recorded the soundtrack for the movie, which is rather symptomatic
and it seems like LaBute wanted to experiment with two extremes: The Smashing
rock stars with scandals, which may highlight the impression from the character of
Evelyn. Costello, on the other hand, has successfully avoided affairs, and his music may
function as a background and non-disturbing music for the whirlwind of events on the
screen and may emphasize the impact of the events more than loud music as such. As
Neil Labute said: “[…] I’m dealing with different ways of approaching the presentation
of the play – in terms of the loudness of music: the music at the opening night was so
loud that Harold Pinter left the theatre” (Istel 39) and he is also proud of confusing the
audience by” the absence of a curtain call” (Istel 40). It is true, of course, that there are
differences between the play and the movie in general, however the comparison may be
21
appropriate here because the play and the movie are written and directed by one person
Neil LaBute has been described as “the new Edward Albee of theater for his
unflinching exposure of evil, hypocrisy, and ennui in modern American life” (Bell 101).
The play is significant in the use of language and the graphic version as well. LaBute
consistently uses lower-case letters – even in the titles of the plays – a lot of three-dot
features, strictly colloquial language with filler words but this is what he finds exciting
about plays:
It’s a strange no-man’s land of language. And I’m quite comfortable there. I put
as many ‘ums’, ‘likes’, and ‘whatevers’ as I can. […] it takes awhile to finish a
sentence because you’re so busy kind of working your way around it and
thinking on your feet about what you’re going to say” (Istel 41).
LaBute has a more prosaic reason: “it’s a simple matter of being able to type faster, to
write more and in a way that allows the work to flow out of myself more completely,
Looking at the text as a whole, one may notice the dialogues in the play looks
like the exchange in a game of tennis except for the very end of the play when Evelyn
holds a long speech about her attitude to art and the Adam project. LaBute’s language is
often compared to the style of Harold Pinter, which is confirmed by Tom Wilhelmus’s
words:
22
LaBute’s language is poetic—a poetry of hesitations, clichés, qualifications,
such as Beckett, Albee, and Pinter by turning the cliché-ridden speech of the
LaBute uses language, which is easy to understand and depicts the hesitant moments
perfectly. To many people, his plays are “through and through American” (Saal 325)
but LaBute manages to depict “the everyday, lazy language that you routinely overhear
in train stations or diners” (Saal 325). His language is fragmental resulting from “the
loss of values that once gave substance to national myths but which now survive only in
Limits of art
The play is not concerned about morality and manipulation only, it is engaged in
issues with greater overlap – to art: To what extent is an artist authorized to shape the
object of his or her work? What is acceptable artistic material? At what point does
concluded by a question: What is art? Does it have the right to enjoy special privileges
from the society (special ethical norms and legal treatment)? On the one hand, all
authorities in the world of art enforce their own interpretation or definition of art.
conveying and sharing the contents, which cannot be communicated by other media and
ways, through experience – is a widely-spread idea the people dealing with the world of
23
art have, it cannot be applied universally. It is only a one-way direction: it explains why
art is what we understand as art. However, it does not serve to distinguish art from what
is not art. One of the most suitable definitions may be the institutional definition of art.
It represents a concept based on several theoretical works, their reception and critical
The Philosophy Journal in 1964. His text was simply called The Artworld. In the first
text, Arthur Danto appeals “to separate the objects those are works of art from those
which are not, because … we know how correctly to use the word 'art' and to apply the
phrase 'work of art'” (Danto 572). Although Danto is often given credit for the
institutional definition and also criticized for it, it was philosopher George Dickie, who
transformed it into a real definition. Noël Carroll, who is considered one of the most
ideas, Dickie’s is a world of people, of artists and their politics” (14). Danto admitted
that he was “often credited with being the founder of the institutional theory, though in
fact it was George Dickie whose theory it was“ (Rollins 298). Dickie declared that
Danto’s and his approach to the world of art differ in many aspects. Danto emphasized
museums being institutions of power, which are created by power ideas, and describes
the position of an artist or object on the market with ideas operated by institutions
engaged in the segment of art (museums, galleries, businessmen, reviewers etc). Dickie
adopts the term ‘the world of art’ from Danto, yet he radically shifts it. For Danto, it
was the meaning: “Something is a work of art if it has a meaning is about something
and if it embodies its meaning,” (Herwitz, Kelly 126) the validity of the institutional
definition was implicit. When developing his theory, Danto specified several
should have a subject, should project some attitude or a point of view, should engage
24
audience participation and fill in what is missing within the society, and should insist on
art historical context for its interpretation (Adajian). The motive for Danto’s and
Dickie’s new theories was the rise of conceptual art. Conceptual objects as such did not
bear exceptional features, which distinguished art from non-art. Andy Warhol’s Brillo
boxes became the symptomatic work (Danto 581). Danto noticed that Warhol’s boxes
are about 2 x 103 times more expensive than common boxes with identical qualities,
form and material. Danto thinks that “we cannot readily separate the Brillo cartons from
the gallery they are in” (Danto 581). According to Danto, the object has a nature of an
artwork with its institutionalized context but has not special qualities. This aspect was
elaborated by Walter Benjamin back in 1936 in his famous, quoted and paraphrased The
Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. Benjamin introduced the term
nature of artworks: it is created by the “second life” of the work, its reception,
artwork. When the artwork was reproduced, it was deprived of its aura but it was
claims that “a work of art exists within a framed space. So does the individual, whether
in a gallery or not” (83) but Evelyn in the shape of things is the person who “breaches
the frame” (83). In her final speech, Evelyn talks about “human sculpture on which i’ve
worked these past eighteen weeks, and of whom i’m very proud” (LaBute 118).
The trigger of revaluation of the theory of art and the ideas about the end of art
presented by Danto was the conceptual twist in the 20th century art. The conceptual
twist arose with the invention of the ready-made art introduced by Marcel Duchamp’s
Fountain. Having used the pseudonym of R. Mutt, he exhibited a urinal placed upside
25
down in an art gallery. Two years before, he exhibited a spade as an artwork called In
Advance of the Broken Arm. Arthur Danto related his institutional theory to Duchamp
ready-mades:
Duchamp’s philosophical discovery was that art could exist, and that its
importance was that it had no aesthetic distinction to speak of, at a time when it was
widely believed that aesthetic delectation was what art was all about. (Randol)
Ready-made reassessed demands for art placed by the world of art and the general
public.
In his text about conceptual art published in Artforum in 1967, Sol Lewitt wrote:
In conceptual art the idea or concept is the most important aspect of the work.
When an artist uses a conceptual form of art, it means that all of the planning
and decisions are made beforehand and the execution is a perfunctory affair. The
According to contemporary critics, all art after Duchamp was fundamentally conceptual
because he did not aim at aesthetical qualities but an idea to incorporate experienced
reality in art, not the reversed strategy. Conceptual art did not have any common idea,
feature is indignation toward art formalisms, criticism of the static character of how the
world of art works (the art business in particular), the request to arrange objective facts
26
Another question the play asks is: where are the limits/borders of art? What is art
and when can we say it is not art anymore? Similar issues are discussed and analyzed in
Stephen Sachs’s Bakersfield Mist and John Logan’s Red. The two plays also utilize two
famous abstract painters, Jackson Pollock and Mark Rothko, to illustrate and support
their message. Sachs has chosen the genre of comedy, in which drama is hidden, and
tells a story of Maud, an unemployed bartender, who lives in a trailer and claims to have
a picture painted by Jackson Pollock. Maud invites Lionel, an art expert, to confirm that
her picture is not a fake. On the contrary, Logan uses the venue of Mark Rothko’s
studio and his dialogues with Ken, his assistant, to demonstrate the aesthetics of art, the
concept of colors and the purpose of art. Both dramas leave the questions unanswered as
the audience never learns whether it is ‘real’ Pollock or if a canvas with several shades
of red is ‘real’ art. According to Christopher Bigsby, “self-mutilation does not become
art by declaring it so any more than does the willful use of other people’s bodies by
Sculpting and sculptures are the essential and omnipresent words speaking of
Shaw’s Pygmalion and LaBute’s the shape of things. The issues of morality, boundaries
or identities are discussed and analyzed. Adam and Evelyn have their conversation
about art theory at the very beginning. She claims that beauty of art is subjective but
Adam starts quoting Oscar Wilde’s words about universal truth in art. Evelyn admits he
is right but objects that she is engaged in practicalities and censorship claiming that the
sculpture they are looking at is not real (LaBute 8). She is the one who contradicts
Wilde and decides what is true and false. Significantly enough, Evelyn is a sculptor, an
artist, who sculpts her thesis and Adam in a single project. She is shaping, carving,
modeling, forming and defining Adam throughout the play to redefine his sexuality and
masculinity and carve out a better man. Evelyn sees herself as a savior of art because,
27
according to her, she shows the ‘real’ art. She is obsessed with revealing art objects –
like at the beginning of the play, when she wants to “deface the statue” (LaBute 6). She
starts to discuss the purpose of art with Adam, who is an English major and does not
understand what Evelyn’s ‘high art’ means. Although Evelyn claims that “beauty of
art… it’s subjective” (LaBute 8) and speaks about aesthetic qualities, she still judges the
sculpture with a leaf on its loins to be “fake, not real” (LaBute 8), therefore it removed
“its subjectivity as art” (LaBute 9) because the local committee objected to his “’thing’.
the shape of it” (LaBute 9). Evelyn does not see the boundary between an artistic and
personal identity and together with her passive-aggressive behavior, she stops at nothing
when she wants to reach what he has in mind – she has all the preconditions to be
successful in what she calls the thesis. She examines “how far the artist can go in his or
her determination to impinge on the sensibility of the observer (Bigsby 83). At the end
of the play, Adam uses irony to moderate the horrible truth he has just discovered – he
is an object of an installation.
Although Adam looks like a victim at first sight, Evelyn highlights the point she wants
to make – art is subjective and he should probably be happy that he had the great chance
thinks that “art reaches into other people’s lives as though everything were available for
28
appropriation, art generated less by an interest in form than by personal inadequacies,
becomes a kind of therapy whose price is paid by others” (Bigsby 87) as he mentions it
and if i totally miss the point here and somehow puking up your little shitty
neuroses all over people’s laps is actually art, then you oughta at least realize
there’s price to it all… you know? somebody pays for your two minutes on cnn.
someone always pays for people like you. and if you don’t get that, if you can’t
see at least that much. […] it should be more provocative than that. anybody
take a piss, paint yourself blue and run naked through a church screaming out the
names of people you’ve slept with. is that art, or did you just forget to take your
In other words, he fails to understand that Evelyn is willing to sacrifice and subordinate
everything to what she considers art. According to LaBute, Evelyn is “an art terrorist”
(Bigsby 82) because she expresses her political attitudes with buttons on her clothes:
she wears the picture of Mao and Che Guevara but she is very radical in all the actions
she performs.
Conclusion
Neil LaBute is enfant terrible of the 21st century drama and all his plays have
caused stormy debates about the topics and characters because he addresses the topics
candidly and has no moral or ethical restraints. In his works, he attempts to show the
darker side of human souls without open criticism – the judges are the audience, not
29
him. It is also the case of one of his most famous plays the shape of things. Having been
made into a feature film starring Rachel Weisz and Paul Rudd, the same actors of the
opening night, it has become very popular, although the word ‘popular’ does not aptly
The main characters of the shape of things are Adam and Evelyn, who seem to
be exact opposites at the beginning but in the course of the play, the audience discovers
they may have more in common than they have ever thought. At the end, Adam is not
the pitiful and poor man transformed by Evelyn without being aware of it, and Evelyn is
not the manipulative and cruel woman, who abused Adam from the very beginning. The
demonstrate that the whole process of transformation was Adam’s choice and if he did
not give his consent, nothing would happen. Yet the play deals with more serious
concepts, not only with appearance. Having compared Evelyn to Professor Higgins, I
wanted to demonstrate the traits they share and point out the gender aspect in the shape
of things. Evelyn’s actions are rather shocking, disturbing and provocative but the fact
that she goes beyond the carefully demarcated limits of being a stereotypically fragile
woman is what surprises audiences the most. Moreover, she justifies her actions by art –
a word that can mean anything because there is no authority in the world who may say
what art really is, therefore it makes it difficult to contradict her in this aspect. This is
the reason why I included a short theoretical introduction to the theory of art and linked
it to Evelyn, who, in her quest to reach the truth in art, cannot be stopped by anything
and anybody.
30
Notes
2 More information about the development of the myth – see Stefanie Eck’s
Galatea’s Emancipation
3 In the printed version of the shape of things, Neil LaBute uses only lower-case
31
Works Cited
plato.stanford.edu/entries/art-definition/.
Baitz, John Robin. “Neil LaBute.” Bomb, no. 83, spring 2003, pp. 56-61. Jstor,
www.jstor.org/stable/40426878.
Benjamin, Walter. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. Marxist
Bigsby, Christopher. Neil LaBute. Stage and Cinema. Cambridge University Press,
Boudreau, Brenda. “Sexually Suspect: Masculine Anxiety in the Films of Neil LaBute.”
Carrol, Noël, editor. Theories of Art Today. University of Wisconsin Press, 2000.
Danto, Arthur C. “The Artworld”. Journal of Philosophy, vol. 51, no. 19, 1964, pp.
Day, Elizabeth. “Neil LaBute: ‘I’m a relatively nice person…’” The Guardian, 18 Oct
2015, www.theguardian.com/stage/2015/oct/18/neil-labute-im-a-relatively-
nice-person-interview.
Anglo- Saxon Literature since the 20th Century. Anchor Academic Publishing,
2014.
32
Herwitz, Daniel Alan and Michael Kelly, editors. Action, Art, History: Engagements
Hilmer, Brigitte. “Being Hegelian After Danto”. History and Theory, no. 37, December
1998, p. 77.
Istel, John. “Who is Neal LaBute and Why Is He Saying Those Terrible Things About
You?” American Theatre, vol. 18, no. 9, Nov. 2001, pp 38-41, 100. Academic
436aa5d39eb5ae5c202c%40sessionmgr101&vid=5&hid=128&bdata=JmF1dGh
0eXBlPXNzbyZjdXN0aWQ9czU0MDc1MjUmbGFuZz1jcyZzaXRlPWVob3N
0LWxpdmU%3d#AN=5438089&db=a9h.
2014.
Jordan, Pat. “Neil LaBute Has a Thing About Beauty.” New York Times Magazine, Mar
search.proquest.com/docview/215475643?accountid=16579 .
LaBute, Neil. the shape of things. Faber and Faber Limited, 2001. Pdf file.
Lehman, Susan. Directors: From Stage to Screen and Back Again. Intellect, 2013.
emerald.tufts.edu/programs/mma/fah188/sol_lewitt/paragraphs%20on%20
conceptual%20art.htm
culture/dantos-definition.
Rollins, Mark. Philosophers and Their Critics: Danto and His Critics (2). Wiley-
Blackwell, 2012.
33
Saal, Ilka. "'Let's Hurt Someone': Violence and Cultural Memory in the Plays of Neil
LaBute." New Theatre Quarterly, vol. 24, no. 4, 2008, pp. 322-336,
dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266464X0800047X.
www.gutenberg.org/files/3825/3825-h/3825-h.htm.
The Shape of Things. Directed by Neil LaBute, performances by Paul Rudd and Rachel
Wilhelmus, Tom. “Morality and Metaphor in the Works of Neil LaBute.” Neil LaBute:
34
Shrnutí
Práce se zabývá hrou the shape of things (do češtiny překládáno jako Tvar věcí,
stejnojmenný film byl promítán jako Sexuální rekonstrukce) dramatika Neila LaButa,
americké divadelní scény. Hlavním tématem jsou genderové aspekty hry v porovnání se
podle svých vlastních představ. V shape of things se LaBute zabývá mimo jiné tématy
manipulace, lidských vztahů, krutosti, násilí, hledání sama sebe, hranicemi v umění a
postavami hry, Adamem a Evelyn, kteří symbolizují své biblické archetypy a hledá
v této hře spojený právě s manipulací a slouží jako jakási vznešená záštita Evelyniných
na sebevědomého a atraktivního muže využila pouze pro svůj prospěch: Adam si sice je
vědom procesu transformace, ale netuší, že byl vmanipulován do situace, kdy se stane
dílem, což se on – i diváci – dozví až na konci hry. Evelyn se tak stává Higginsem a
Adam Lizou, což podtrhuje jedno z hlavních témat hry: záležitost pohlaví obrácená
naruby.
35
Summary
The thesis deals with the shape of things written by Neil LaBute, who is the
main topics of the thesis are gender aspects of the play compared with Shaw’s
Pygmalion because the main heroine transforms the main male character according to
her pattern. In the shape of things, LaBute analyzes the topics of manipulation, human
relationships, cruelty, violence, finding oneself, limits of art and the position of a person
in contemporary society. The thesis primarily focuses on two main characters of the
play, Adam and Evelyn, who symbolize their biblical archetypes, and aims to find
parallels between the characters of Liza and Professor Higgins from Shaw’s play. In
LaBute’s play, the concept of art is linked to manipulation and serves as a dignified
shield of Evelyn’s deeds. It turns out that Evelyn used the Adam’s transformation from
a dull and feeble museum guard into a self-confident and attractive man in her own
advantage: Adam is aware of the process of transformation but he does not know that he
has been manipulated into a situation, when he becomes the main subject of Evelyn’s
thesis at university as well as an artwork; he – and the audience – learn about this fact at
the end of the play. Thus, Evelyn becomes Higgins and Adam becomes Liza, which
36