Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? Why?

[Larcen26]

Posted: 11/28/16 at 5:06pm

I figured I would write this here, as opposed to the main board...

I am asking this with true curiosity.  I seriously want to understand.  And while I am sure that my comment/question will be ripe for mocking, I would truly appreciate honest some honest discussion.

 

Why is it considered such a great play?  I simply do not get it.  It is basically three hours of awful people being awful to each other.  There is virtually no plot, and very little character development since at some point, you start to question everything that is coming out of their mouths.  I get that it can lend itself to good performances, but does that make it a good play?  Shouldn't a good play be able to transcend performances?

It is considered to be one of the great pieces of American theater...and I simply can't understand it.  But I really really really want to.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 11/28/16 at 6:18pm

The characters are fascinating, funny, smart, alive, complicated, and highly individuated.  George and Martha's playbook represents something in all marriages.  But, of course, to a horrifyingly magnified degree.
Unsatisfied with the ordinariness of their life, a couple co-enable all-consuming games they continually act out.  Both their enduring marriage and their escapist games are animated by a shared myth, a rationalization for their staying together, the child who binds them.  We meet them NOT (I left this word out inadvertently earlier) on the last night not of their lives, or even of their life together, but rather on the last night of their collective obsession.   When they no longer have the energy and will to continue reliving their hostile fantasies, which we see in real time pushing them to the brink of emotional exhaustion, they are left with only a single choice: to abandon rationalization and face reality, in all its ordinariness.   A humbling prospect, and in its own way as terrifying as the fixations they have been forced to give up.   

Updated On: 11/30/16 at 06:18 PM

[hork]

Posted: 11/28/16 at 6:29pm

I've only seen the movie, but I assume it's faithful to the play, so I'll try to answer it. I think it's a master class in writing. The dialogue is hilarious and sad, often both at once. The word play and double and triple entendres are brilliant. Every character has at least two motivations for everything they do. And yes, you question everything that comes out of their mouths. That's the point. These people are so miserable that they don't know the difference between fantasy and reality anymore. George and Martha love each other, but love is not enough. The only way they can live their lives together is by constructing elaborate fantasies. It's tragic and heartbreaking (although, not that tragic ... at the end I always feel like they'll be fine).

[Stage Door Sally]

Posted: 11/28/16 at 7:59pm

I'm a huge fan of this play, and I thought the recent revival with Tracy Letts was perfect. Basically, I see it as a portrait of a marriage gone wrong. There's a major battle between husband and wife, and through all the trials and tribulations everyone ends up defeated - including the audience. It's an exhausting play. If you don't need a good stiff drink afterwards, it wasn't done well. That's one of its strengths, it draws out huge emotions.

Another strength is the dialogue. It's funny, biting, and very clever. Maureen Anderman, who played Honey in the 1976 revival, told me that Albee, who directed her, told the cast to play the humor up. He wanted the audience to laugh till it hurt. I saw that version, and I agree, it was hysterical. I think the play has the best dramatic umbrella bit. At the recent revival, my daughter nearly jumped into my lap when that umbrella came out. 

Having seen different productions, there definitely is room for varied character interpretations. Tracy Letts gave George a deeper sense of hope than I've seen in other actors. I also thought Carrie Coon was the definitive stage Honey saying so much with just a look. (Sandy Dennis was great in the film).

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 11/28/16 at 8:06pm

Carrie Coon blew me away. Her smaller, subtler performance at Steppenwolf was even more incredible.

[Theater_Nerd]

Posted: 11/29/16 at 2:51pm

This is one of my all time favorite plays. I loved the film but I got a deeper sense of appreciation of the text when I sat down and read it during one of my long excursions. I found myself reading and reading certain passages and more specifically the monologues. There is so much room for interpretation, and I think that's the beauty of it. 

One Sunday afternoon I came across the original Broadway Cast recording with Uta Hagen, Arthur Hill, Melinda Dillon and George Grizzard and was absolutely floored - - - what an invaluable document of the original cast. 

Priceless.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 11/29/16 at 4:24pm

So Larcen -- how old are you?

[Gideon Brigg]

Posted: 11/29/16 at 5:12pm

ANYONE interested in experiencing WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF? in all its full power and to understand why it is considered a Great Play MUST listen to the production's original cast recording -initially issued as a 4-LP set and since reissued on CD. (If you don't want to buy it, get it from any good library).  Under Alan Schneider's expert direction, the DEFINITIVE performances of Uta Hagen and Arthur Hill, nearly matched by co-players George Grizzard and Melinda Dillion, amply illustrate what makes Edward Albee's play the theatrical landmark it is.  (Do NOT judge this play from the film version or any of the subsequent revivals on Broadway or in  regional, college or community theater). ONLY the original will do!

[Theater_Nerd]

Posted: 11/29/16 at 5:22pm

Hi Gideon Brigg!

The original Broadway recording is also available for digital download via a variety of platforms, and while I respect your right to an opinion I have an issue with you saying that ONLY the original will do. 

There have been many other productions of the play that have done the material justice.

The 1966 motion picture adaptation expertly directed by Mike Nichols garnered 13 Academy Award nominations and went on to win for Elizabeth Taylor's performance as "Martha" and Sandy Dennis' performance as "Honey".

It is also preserved in the Library of Congress as being culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant".

Not too shabby if you ask me.

Updated On: 11/29/16 at 05:22 PM

[MichelleCraig]

Posted: 11/29/16 at 5:31pm

I have seen several stage productions of this play...but I make a point to watch the movie at least once a year. It works on so many different levels and, depending on my mood, I can see it as a black, black comedy...or as a complete tragedy that I walk away from wrecked. Maybe OP will grow to appreciate the work in time...

[Larcen26]

Posted: 11/30/16 at 3:24pm

Roscoe said: "So Larcen -- how old are you?"



Turning 41 in January

After reading all of the responses, it seems to me that the ultimate answer is "If you don't get it, you don't get it."

Which I am fine with ultimately. I was just hoping there was something more easily definable that I was missing since I consider myself an intelligent person who has been enjoying theater for my whole life.

I wish I saw what was so appealing about it, or why it is considered so amazing, but I just see nothing in it.

Updated On: 11/30/16 at 03:24 PM

[Roscoe]

Posted: 11/30/16 at 4:00pm

OK -- 41 excludes you from the "you'll get it when you grow up" response.

Yeah, looks like it's just not your cup of tea.  It happens.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 11/30/16 at 4:12pm

I can see people younger than Larcen perhaps not responding to this play the way older people might.  But I can also see married or partnered people (or people who have been married or partnered) responding to this play in a way that those who have never had that kind of relationship might not.  

In other words, Larcen, it might simply not be your cup of tea, as Roscoe said; but in addition to your age, I'm curious about your relationship history - no need to answer, just throwing that out there.

Updated On: 11/30/16 at 04:12 PM

[Stage Door Sally]

Posted: 11/30/16 at 4:56pm

I'll say one more thing about this play, which in my opinion makes it more than merely "An Evening With The Bickersons."

Beneath the black humor and clever dialogue, the play is ultimately about the illusions these couples hold onto to keep their marriages going. Over the course of this one evening, all those illusions are shattered for good. The truth is there in front of them and can't be ignored. George is especially tragic. He has been emasculated by Martha and her father, and Martha's flirtation with the male guest is the final straw. He destroys Martha's illusions. But in doing so, perhaps there is hope they can now have a real marriage and stop hurting each other.

Another reason this play resonates with me is I grew up with the "Bickersons." Woolf rang true to me in many ways. After 30 years of a tumultuous marriage, my parents finally divorced. There was a lot of pain, suffering and fighting along the way. Ironically, my parents are now friends and are on good speaking terms. Sometimes you just never know.

 

 

 

 

[Luscious]

Posted: 12/2/16 at 6:07pm

Listening now to the Broadway recording with Hagen for the first time in years. There's no denying that it's powerful, and all of the performances strong, but for me there's just something about the movie that's so intimate and visceral. Taylor, Burton, Dennis and Segal are all perfectly cast. Taylor is ferocious in the role. And under the expert direction of Nichols, and Haskell Wexler's superb black & white cinematography, the movie is damn near perfect. I came across this review of the film online, and couldn't agree more.

The story of George and Martha's (Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor) corrupt, verbally sado-masochistic marriage, and the unwilling recruitment of two nervous dinner guests, "Nick" (George Segal) and "Honey" (Sandy Dennis) into a tunnel of anger and desire, may have found its most sublime expression not on a stage, seen from a distant balcony, but on screen, in the harsh greys and blacks of one of the visual masterworks of the dramatic cinema.

[Stage Door Sally]

Posted: 12/3/16 at 1:49pm

I enjoyed the movie too, and agree Taylor was superb, perhaps her best performance ever. However, the film lost me when they left the house and went to the bar. It was a big thud, totally unneeded. It dragged the pace and intensity down. 

[Luscious]

Posted: 12/3/16 at 3:28pm

"However, the film lost me when they left the house and went to the bar. It was a big thud, totally unneeded. It dragged the pace and intensity down."

I respectively disagree, but I get where you're coming from.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 12/5/16 at 4:48pm

The trip to the road house does give us a better explanation of what George was up to while Martha and Nick were trying to get it on.  It makes a little more sense that he's walking home from the road house (as in the film) than having him just wander off outside (as in the play).  It works either way, I think.  I always like the blast on the horn that Martha gives as she drives away from George -- that last "f*ck you!!" always makes me laugh.

[Stage Door Sally]

Posted: 12/5/16 at 9:10pm

I'm just kind of nitpicking. I like the claustrophobic element of the play, and just didn't see the need to open it up in the film. That said, I agree the film is very powerful.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/6/16 at 2:34pm

I've been enjoying reading all the comments regarding this play.  I have yet another opinion/perspective on this play which is: I get why it's so well-respected, but I still don't enjoy seeing/reading it.  I feel that way about a lot of plays including certain works by Anton Chekhov, Tennessee Williams, Arthur Miller, Eugene O'Neill and David Mamet to name a few.  Some plays unsettle me in a good way and some unsettle me in a bad way.  Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf is an example of the latter.  I have never connected with it in a positive way.  Someday that may change or perhaps it may never change.  There are still countless plays I enjoy that I may choose to revisit rather than those I initially disliked and that's okay.  I can still be objective enough to understand what made them important plays, but it doesn't mean I must enjoy them or that I'm missing something in order to enjoy them.  It's sort of an emotional chemistry, if you will.

As an aside, I was fortunate enough to finish my undergrad at the university where Albee taught and chatted with him frequently.  I also got to experience productions of a couple of his lesser-known works like The Marriage Play and The Lorca Play as well as study a work-in-progress, The Play About the Baby (I still have my copy of his working draft).  I also worked on productions for his annual Playwrights Festival and often read scenes for his playwriting class.  He was absolutely delightful and the acerbic sense of humor found in his plays was truly an extension of his personality.  Not to mention, he was always approachable and down-to-earth while appearing as though he'd just tumbled out of bed at any given moment.  He attended several productions of the small (yet notable) theatre company of which I was a member.  Whether I like his plays or not (and some I LOVE), I've always had profound respect for the man and I really miss him.

Updated On: 12/6/16 at 02:34 PM

[Stage Door Sally]

Posted: 12/6/16 at 3:49pm

Mister Matt, what a great story. You are so fortunate!