I have seen the film version of "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" many times, which follows the play very closely, with the exception of some locale changes. I am still astounded by this play, and the fact that its central mystery, no matter how many times I read it, will never be uncovered. It is a play that is simultaneously avant-garde and accessible, that cuts through the pretension that exists in most "Broadway-worthy" dramatic work that came before it, and that has come after. WAOVW shows, more effectively than any other play I know, how people behave when their masks are supposedly off--when other, deeper layers of defenses are revealed. Although in the script, Martha and George do admit to being childless, to never having had the "son" they speak so much of--whether or not he ever existed can never truly be known. Because George and Martha are such expert game-players, constantly trying to fool themselves, and each other--the "truth" gets lost in that process. This play has been labeled a "dark comedy", but I would call it a "tragicomedy". This work is also very reflective of the early 1960's when it was written--when the social constraints of the 1950's were being sloughed off, and the swinger movement had entered the mainstream. However--George and Martha, or at least Martha, are so far from the stereotype of "swingers" that to label their characters as such would be an insult. As much as both of them are down to earth, they are also academics (or at least a "closet academic" in Martha's case).

The play is essentially "a performance within a performance"; the characters put on their party hats and play the roles of "party personalities", displaying all the faults and enthusiasms of cruel children. George and Martha are the Alpha-Couple, with Martha being the "Alpha Female"--or so it seems. Nonetheless--although George is consistently hounded by Martha--George also wields power in the relationship. In the end, both George and Martha play the fool; yet beneath their chaotic facades, both possess considerable wisdom. They are just trying to get through life; they are failures; they are laughing at themselves; still, one wishes that it could be so much better for them. If life is truly as ugly as the example provided by WAOVW--what other choice do they have, than to be as they are, and go on as they have been? Although the relationship as it is displayed in "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" make it appear that George and Martha have a hellish relationship, that may not actually be the case. The end of the play indicates a capacity on both their parts to, at least temporarily, makes peace with their tragedy, and with each other, thus making it bearable for them to go on living, with themselves and with one another. ( )

Disturbing. Fascinating. Disturbing. ( )

I liked the dialogue and I believe I want to see the movie with taylor and burton. though definitely dated. Did people really used to drink like this? Maybe this was back when people just stayed married. I didn't understand why they just didnt get divorced, except the prof was worried about his career and martha had some secret past which didn't seem to hurt her with other ambitious teachers. I didn't get the pretend son. Was the university president grandfather and everyone else who had been on campus the length of their marriage also going along with the charade? I could see the overarching themes, but had to take a lot on faith to along with it. at least to me in 2011. ( )

4.5* This play about a dysfunctional couple reads almost as well as it plays on stage. I have seen the film version with Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton (more than once) & I kept hearing their voices while I was reading. ( )

Honestly, reading this play made me feel anxious. It was fast paced and verging on the edge of madness. They're all batshit crazy and very unlikeable. Apparently it's a classic for portraying a darker side of romantic relationships on stage and the inner secrets of a marriage - and at the time it undoubtedly would've been groundbreaking to confront the idea that marriages were more than the facade presented to the public. But while I can appreciate that it was scandalous at the time, it's hard to remember that when pretty much all you see these days are divorces, split families and mental breakdowns. 1.5 stars, rounded up to 2 for appreciating that it was radical and trailblazing at the time. ( )

Wow. It's been a while since I've dabbled in the Theater of the Absurd. I've read Zoo Story and The American Dream, so this was quite entertaining--in a somewhat disturbing fashion. One could almost identify with Nick--uneasily listening in on a conversation (between George and Martha) that should have never been listened to. ( )

نمایشنامه‌ی عجیبیه و البته بسیار زیبا... با اینکه قبلاً فیلمش رو با بازی الیزابت تیلور و ریچارد بورتون رو دیده بودم، باز هم هر لحظه از خوندنش پر بود از لذت ناب!
جالبیش اینه همونطور که این نمایشنامه تأثیر شگرفی روی تئاتر آمریکا می‌گذاره، فیلمش هم‌تأثیر زیادی تو بحث سانسور و ممیزی هالیوود می‌گذاره و رده‌بندی سنی فیلم‌ها که امروز وجود داره در اثر ساخت چند فیلم مثل همین فیلم شکل گرفت. ( )

Teszkó gazdaságos pokol: két ember elég a fenntartásához. Persze egymás kifilézésének élménye hatványozható, ha új személyeket vonunk be, a célnak pedig épp megfelel a biológia tanszék ifjú üdvöskéje: a tipikus WASP jócsávó, illetve hamvas felesége. Mert a pokol nézőközönség nélkül – úgy fest – nem is pokol igazán.

Amikor az első felvonás végén a függöny legördült, azon tépelődtem, hová lehet ezt még fokozni. Martha és George olyan mély sebeket ejtett egymáson, olyan félelmetes elszántsággal és pervertált intelligenciával csinálták ki egymást (mindezt a vendégek, Honey és Nick szeme előtt), olyan piszkos titkok bukkantak felszínre, hogy annál már – gondoltam – nincs lejjebb. Vajon mit tartogat nekünk még Albee?
1.) Rátesz egy lapáttal arra, amire rátenni nem lehet, és a párkapcsolati emberkínzás eddig ismeretlen szintjére vezet minket? Olyan mocskos titkokat bányász elő a lélek mélyéről, amelyeket elképzelni sem tudunk?
2.) A kicsinálást Martha és George személyéről áthelyezi Honeyra és Nickre, így a nézőből résztvevő válik? Valahogy úgy, mintha elmentél volna egy boxmeccsre, és hirtelen téged rángatnának be a szorítóba, hogy orrba csűrjenek?
3.) Esetleg az egymáspusztítás zenitjén az egész irányt vált, és megtudunk valamit a gyűlölet mélyén rejlő szeretetről?
A helyzet az, hogy Albee voltaképpen mindhármat megteszi. És pont ezért zseniális.

Nagyszerű dráma, a leghatásosabbak egyike. Olyan ereje van, hogy még a kissé avítt fordítást is majdnem feledteti. Nem lettem volna ott, ahol Albee az ihletet kapta. ( )

‘'tis the refuge we take when the unreality of the world weighs too heavy on our tiny heads"

Libera me, Domine, de morte aeterna, in die illa tremenda 
Quando cœli movendi sunt et terra
 Dum veneris iudicare saeculum per ignem.

Tremens factus sum ego, et timeo, dum discussio venerit, atque ventura ira
Quando cœli movendi sunt et terra.

Dies illa, dies irae, calamitatis et miseriæ, dies magna et amara valde
Dum veneris iudicare saeculum per ignem.

Requiem aeternam dona eis, Domine: et lux perpetua luceat eis.

Latin for 'brilliant masterpiece'





( )

a couple set on mutual destruction with unwilling witnesses

I read this play in one sitting, which is not a difficult task, as it isn’t a long book. There are just four characters, and it takes place in real time – both of these points appealed to me.

George and Martha are a middle aged couple who live on a New England university campus. George is a history lecturer and Martha is the Dean’s daughter. Although they have been married for years, and seem like they would be lost without each other, they also despise each other and both take pleasure in taunting the other.

Things take a sinister turn – although you suspect not for the first time – when a young Biology lecturer named Nick, who is new to the university visits them after a party one night, bringing his naive wife Honey with him. Nick and Honey become drawn into the older couple’s private war, and become pawns in their game.

In the third act, a secret is revealed about George and Martha which goes some way towards explaining their antagonism towards each other (no spoilers here).

It’s a bleak read, and somewhat dated now. Still, I am glad I read it, and would recommend it, but I actually prefer the film version with excellent performances from Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton. ( )

A play which is little more than a knock-down drag out fight. The protagonists are skilled eviscerators and have been married for twenty years. In between the fireworks, the considerable need of this pair for each other, and their complete failure to re-assure each other becomes naked, and curiously compelling. but it not easy fun, and it does evoke some uncomfortable introspection by the audience. ( )

Der Titel klingt heiter und wie eine bloße Variante des Kinderliedes ›Wer hat Angst vor dem bösen Wolf?‹ Aber hinter dieser scheinbaren Harmlosigkeit verbirgt sich das Chaos menschlicher Beziehungen. Schauplatz des Dramas ist eine Wohnung, in der sich zwei Ehepaare nach einer Party treffen. Man vertreibt sich die Zeit mit Gesellschaftsspielen, die zum Anlaß der Selbstentblößung werden. Albee geht es dabei um die Aufdeckung menschlicher Illusionen. Er zeichnet mit ebensoviel Wehmut wie Ironie, zugleich messerscharf und doch mitfühlend das Bild des Menschen, dem offenbar alles zum ›Glücklichsein‹ zur Verfügung steht und der doch nur um so hoffnungsloser allein ist.

Der Titel klingt heiter und wie eine bloße Variante des Kinderliedes ›Wer hat Angst vor dem bösen Wolf?‹ Aber hinter dieser scheinbaren Harmlosigkeit verbirgt sich das Chaos menschlicher Beziehungen. Schauplatz des Dramas ist eine Wohnung, in der sich zwei Ehepaare nach einer Party treffen. Man vertreibt sich die Zeit mit Gesellschaftsspielen, die zum Anlaß der Selbstentblößung werden. Albee geht es dabei um die Aufdeckung menschlicher Illusionen. Er zeichnet mit ebensoviel Wehmut wie Ironie, zugleich messerscharf und doch mitfühlend das Bild des Menschen, dem offenbar alles zum ›Glücklichsein‹ zur Verfügung steht und der doch nur um so hoffnungsloser allein ist.

George and Martha are a middle-aged couple who live on a New England university campus; he teaches History, she is the Dean's daughter. They invite a new colleague and his wife over for a nightcap after a university function and, as the night wears on and the drinking grows heavier, subject them to their twisted hate games. For George and Martha loathe each other: their intentionally toxic relationship consists mainly of sniping at each other about flaws real or imagined -- mediocrity, adultery, patricide, overbearing parents. They are vindictive assholes whose only joy is found in going out of their way to be hurtful to each other; their guests are largely there to turn the whole thing into a fetishistic performance.

I suspect the revelations in the third act were supposed to make their relationship seem poignant or even tragic or something, but I couldn’t find it in me to care. George and Martha are vicious assholes who chose to be that way and who choose to continue down that path: they’re entirely responsible for all their nastiness and bullshit, and I see no reason to pity them or even think of them as 3D-characters. They are the Serious Literature equivalents of that one-dimensional Big Bad from dreadfully written genre fiction, who is just evil for no adequately explained reason.

It was at least a little creative, though, and the buildup in acts one and two was good, and so I’ll give it two stars. ( )

Brilliantly written and wonderfully paced. I literally could not put this down once I got into it. The dialogue between the characters gives them a great amount of depth.

George and Martha are a married couple that came back from a party, only to host a small get-together at their home because the head of the college says it would be nice. As the night wears on, a number of revelations are had between the couples and pretenses are stripped away. I would love to see this acted out, but I don't know where it is playing. ( )

Remarkable! A pleasure to read. ( )

I think we read this in school more than 30 years ago. I've definitely seen the Taylor-Burton movie. But in revisiting this text, it was clear to me how much I had forgotten about the toxic nastiness and raw viciousness being played out here. I can't imagine what it must have been like seeing this performed on stage back in the early 60s. Really shocking piece of theatre in the best possible way. ( )

Tandem read with the Mrs. I appreciated the idea that there was Beethoven on the jukebox. ( )

This is a play that is set in 3 acts, in one room of the main couple's house. The play tears apart both marriages. The older couple seems to hate each other, and the younger couple seems to be perfect. But in the end, things change for both couples.



This was a very, very strange book. Plays are not particularly easy to read and this one was no exception. I really don't think there was much of a plot, and it didn't have much direction. It did have some funny parts, but mostly it was wild and all over the place. ( )

This is such a sad play, but a very important one too. Dreams fall apart and that makes life so tough to cope with, especially when we try to keep hold of them. ( )

I have to invent a new word after this play: sadvicious. As in, sad and vicious, ineluctably intertwined, till death do them part. There's also the wicked humor of the play, for which I don't have a new word, a heartbreaking hilarity that keeps pace with the emotional maelstrom. This is an absolutely brilliant work. ( )

http://tinyurl.com/gu8uy5r

I can still recall how visceral the movie felt to me. How could it not: two stellar actors, both with oodles of history between them, aging themselves appropriately, working their butts off? It's way more than that, of course, since it's dependent on the strength of this writing. But I couldn't read the play without seeing Taylor and Burton every step of the way.

I do wonder what it was like to see on the stage (veteran actor Uta Hagen said she would play Martha twelve times a week, if given the chance). It must have been unbelievably vital, raw, scarring and despondent when seen in the flesh. Pure gold for theatre actors, and usually very hard to translate to the screen (one-room plays lose vitality as moving pictures).

But the written play! Well, obviously I wouldn't still remember the movie or want to see it on stage if I didn't think the writing was stellar. But it's a hard read - a knock-down dragged-out fight that will have you so uncomfortable you want to go look at unicorns and rainbows for a while. The perfect illusory antidote to a play that rips illusions aside.

A final note... my book club recently got me into reading plays. Almost kicking and screaming, but not quite - I think I expected them to be more like poetry, which I find even more difficult (another friend is working on me in that regard as well). In each case, I've read a play that I've already seen as a movie, and the stage directions in particular are fun to contrast and compare. As are any potential changes I might notice between the two, which are usually surprisingly few. ( )

Few plays have left a greater impression on me than this one. It is the antithesis of the Ozzie and Harriet/ Leave it to Beaver mid-century version of America. It is real. It is tough. At times tragic and hilarious, the play is a portrait of a complicated, tempestuous, and alcoholic relationship between a husband and wife.

(Btw, the movie with Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor is lights-out good, and I found it to be true to the original text.)

This is not a feel-good piece of art, but it is certainly art. ( )

I found it rather funny to read this book right after reading “Three Guineas”. Why I didn’t read it sooner I’m not sure considering how big a fan I am of Virginia Woolf but who knows why I do the things I do.

Anyway, this play is now on my top 5 list of plays alongside “Streetcar Named Desire” and “No Exit”. I constantly find myself amazed at just how much story can be told by just having people sitting in one room and talking (or in this case yelling) at each other.

Essentially, this play is about four people who get together after a faulty party at a university and proceed to lie about their lives, not just to each other but to themselves. None of their lives are the way they say and throughout the play we get to see these lies crumble before them.

In fact, their allusion to Virginia Woolf is really quite amazing and in my opinion a nod to her fearless insight into the reality of things. The question, “Who’s afraid of Virginia Woolf?” comes up often in the play, mostly in the form of a song. This question forms the basis of the play by cryptically asking the question, “Who’s afraid to live without false illusions?”

It is an absolutely brilliant play that I will probably read multiple times and would love to see performed. Adding that to my growing bucket list. This play becomes a lesson in how the illusions we make about our lives do not only affect the people that we tell them to, but will in the end be our undoing. The best way to go is the way of no illusion. ( )