Theatre 3900

Wednesday, 13 April 2011

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?


the man:

 

alb1-002a.gif

Edward Franklin Albee III was born March 12, 1928, in a now unknown location in Virginia and taken in by the wealthy Albee family when two weeks old, making him the adopted grandson of powerful vaudeville impresario Edward Franklin Albee II (whose company would later become the RKO motion picture company through a series of mergers and transitions). At the age of 22, Albee distanced himself from his adopted family, although he later attempted to reconcile with his mother.

A badly behaved and unwilling student from the start of his educational career, Albee attended Trinity College in CT for only a short while. His college experience mainly consisted of skipping class and refusing to attend compulsory chapel, and thus he was expelled (or “dropped out”) for his behavior.

That’s cool though, because after starting his writing career at the age of 30, Albee is now respected alongside great American playwrights like Arthur Miller, Tennessee Williams, and Eugene O’Neill. He is also credited with Americanizing the Theatre of the Absurd.

Along with his three Tony Awards and the 1996 National Medal of Arts (take that, Trinity), Albee has won three Pulitzer prizes; however, none of them were for “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” Although it received the winning vote from the Pulitzer Prize drama panel in 1963, the Pulitzer Committee vetoed their decision, ultimately deciding the play did not represent a "wholesome" view of American life. The drama panel rebelled (many even resigned), resulting in no prize being awarded that year.

Still alive and writing, Albee currently teaches at the University of Houston. His other notable plays include “A Delicate Balance,” “Seascape,” “Three Tall Women,” and, most recently, “At Home at the Zoo.” He is to be presented with the Edward MacDowell Medal for lifetime achievement August 14.

 

the play:

 Whos-Afraid-of-Virginia-Woolf-Richard-Burton-George-Segal-Elizabeth-Taylor.jpg

“Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” opened on Broadway at the Billy Rose Theater on October 13, 1962, directed by American theatre director Alan Schneider (who also directed the American premiere of Beckett’s “Waiting for Godot”). It ran for 644 performances and was controversial as well as outrageously popular.

The name is a play on the title of the song "Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf?" from Walt Disney's "The Three Little Pigs" and is named after the famous English novelist. The title predated the play – Albee saw the line scribbled on a wall in a bathroom and thought it amusing, as well as an example of the sort of humor singular to universities, and was thus inspired to write the play. He claims the characters of George and Martha were based off of real-life NYC socialites (and tumultuous married couple) Willard Maas, a teacher and poet, and Marie Menken, a documentary filmmaker.

Due to the title, Albee is credited with substantially raising interest in Woolf’s work in 1960s America.

“Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” won both the 1963 Tony Award for Best Play and the 1962-63 New York Drama Critic's Circle Award for Best Play, while its stars won the 1963 Tony Awards for Best Actor and Actress. It would have won the Pulitzer, but, well. We already went over that drama.

It might be useful (or at least interesting) to know the setting in which the play originated. In 1961 and 1962, around the time that Albee was writing the play, these were some of the important events occurring in America:

In 1961, the Cold War continues, J.F.K. (VP: Richard Nixon) enters the White House after Eisenhower, Khrushchev is still leader of USSR, the Bay of Pigs Invasion (April 17-19) fails, Alan Bartlett Sheppard, Jr., becomes the first American in space, Judy Garland makes a comeback, the Freedom Rides take place coinciding with escalating violence in the South, and J.F.K. decrees his goal to place a man on the Moon by the end of the decade -- and in the first half of 1962, the U.S. embargo against Cuba begins, the Supreme Court rules that photos of nude males are not obscene (thus decriminalizing pornographic male magazines), and Marilyn Monroe is found dead from “acute barbiturate poisoning.”

 

questions:

 

1. First off, what was your general reaction to the play? Did you sympathize with the characters at all? Was the story interesting?

 

2. Since this story takes place in a university, it obviously hits a little closer to home than, say, “Ubu Roi” with its abstract royal setting. As members of a university, do you think Albee portrays university life accurately? In what ways did he fail to do so, and/or in what ways did he succeed?

 

3. Martha and George obviously aren’t psychologically healthy people. What do you think their problems are? What is their motivation for acting like they do?

 

4. What do you think Albee wants you to take away about people who choose to become university professors (or just university in general)?

 

5. What were your thoughts on Martha and George’s relationship at the beginning of the play compared to at the end?

 

6. One of the more obvious themes in “Woolf?” is illusion. What parts of the play represented that? Or if not illusion, what did you think the theme of the play was?

 

7. Do Martha and George actually like one another?

 

8. Designers, actors, directors: How would you design/act/cast for this play? Also, Albee doesn’t give many stage directions in the script. Is that freedom a good thing?

 

9. How do gender, sex and sexuality function in the play? Do you think it’s significant that Nick and Martha are the more confident and gregarious, while George and Honey are the more repressed (if that's how you understood the characters)? Or that we’re never told Martha or Honey’s subjects of study (if they have one)?

 

10. If you had to explicitly label the role of each character (feel free to be creative with your labels, e.g. The Instigator, The Downer, The One Who Keeps Things From Getting To Friendly…), what labels would you choose?

 

11. What is the significance of George as a History professor and Nick as a Biology professor?

 

12. What significance did the titles of the Acts hold? Or, in what way did they shape your understanding of the play?


13. What did Martha and George's final scene mean?


14. And finally... the son? How do you describe that?  A creative project gone bad? A necessary delusion created by two lonely drunks? Feel free to voice your thoughts. And what were your feelings on Martha and George's dilemma compared to Honey and Nick's decision not to have children?


That’s all. I’ll see you later today!

7 comments:

  1. Martha and georges relationship made me uncomfortable from the minute i started reading. Their willingness to degrade each other made me despise their characters almost immediately.
    Even though honey and nick were definitely flawed, i really saw them as victims to martha's condescending attitude and george's mean games

    Martha and George's creation of a fake son was a desperate attempt to stay together and continue on living this fantasy life. They both were so afraid of reality that they fabricated a child to live the way they wanted to live.

    I think martha and george can definitely serve as a warning for nick and honey's future.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Martha is obliviously upset about Georges career choices... she sees him as a failure and is obliviously attracted to successful men. I wonder why is she so hard on george about his career? I think maybe she want to live vicariously through george. She can't have her own career because of the time period so maybe she sees georges career as an extension of herself and since george is a "failure" she sees herself limited.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 3. George and Martha's relationship is insane. Relationships that are based off of lies are painful and tiring, and to drag others into their nest of insanity is even more grotesque. Their game keeps their life together interesting. But hey, if they both like to play mind games that stretch beyond the norm, maybe they're a match made in heaven. Perhaps they'd have to like each other to be able to put up with all of that. George sounds like a pretty dull guy outside of the game, being a history professor who lacks the gonads to be head of his college. Martha overcompensates for his lack of personality. Maybe opposites really do attract...

    I also thought it was uber interesting that George killed off his fictional son and Honey either had a hysterical pregnancy or an abortion, and Honey joined George in reciting the Dies Irae at the end of the play.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Going off of the questions regarding professors and universities, I think the fact that all of the characters in the play are so well educated is the most striking theme in the play. Here we have a group of at least somewhat to extremely well educated individuals and they are acting like infants. It offers a huge challenge to our perception of education as the solution to all problems. In fact, education might actually be the root of our characters problems, as those who are educated are often taught to question all things and why shouldn't one of the first things they question be "Do I really love him/her?" or to an even further extent "Is there really such a thing as love?" I also think it adds a different dynamic to the relationship of Martha and George in that their wit and knowledge are what allow them to "play" so well with on another.

    As far as the significance of George and Nick's respective fields, I'm not sure that there is significance to either one. Perhaps it could be argued that Nick is more calculating and scientific during the play while George is more fluent and perhaps articulate, but I didn't see that at all.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 1. I really liked this play and I think that it's obvious that Martha and George love each other because of the different games they play. In the real world, most happy couples don't last long and if they do, they won't be happy forever and I think that this play is a great symbol of that. It's not a relationship if there aren't any problems and I think these people have alot. That's another thing I like about this play, it seems so vague on the surface and the characters seem dull at the beginning, but I've never read a play with this much depth, this much room to decide what actually happened and why. It doesn't explain itself and I love things with no explanation. I didn't have sympathy for anyone though because when I read it, I really just thought the games were just a game. Like the son thing, I didn't think they were that desperate that they had to create a child. I just thought that these people honestly just liked to mess with their guest, that George and Martha were playing craps and Nick and Honey were the dice. The story was interesting though because I'm sure that we've all done something similar to some extent, but not all out like the crazy couple of course. I liked George and I don't know why, but everytime I thought about him in the play I thought about Heath Ledger's Joker; cool, calm, knows what he's doing, but crazy as hell. He always had a story to tell too, and it was the same shit over and over again haha

    ReplyDelete
  6. While reading this play I noticed not only the emphasis on the battle of the sexes/marriages but also on the battle of gender identity. The verbal combat plus the different marriages, show different forms of masculinity in the characters of George and Nick. I felt that the two men were in constant competition or rivalry based on their age, professional affiliations, and personal relationships. Whether it was George vs. Martha, George vs. Nick, or women vs. men, Albee filled this play with conflict. After reading this play, I was curious to know if Albee liked strong women figures or disliked them?

    ReplyDelete
  7. If we're being honest here, I wasn't crazy about this play...but it could be because George and Martha make me uncomfortable. It seems like Martha is doing everything she can to emasculate George, who is already struggling with his ability, as he seems to be comparing himself to Nick in their jobs. On the other hand, George is absolutely hateful to Martha, and neither one of them seem to give a damn about the other one's feelings. Still, in the middle of this, I think they truly care for one another, in their sick/twisted way. I know this sort of relationship dynamic exists, because circumstances make people bitter (which is exactly what I think happened to George and Martha)but I just don't like to think about it. I think we all hope that we never find ourselves in this position, but it's entirely possible, if we let it happen. I think this sort of twisted "I hate you, but I love you" thing is what Albee is trying to warn people about, which is commendable, but I don't have to like it :)

    ReplyDelete