The end of WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF?- Page 2

[Dollypop]

Posted: 6/4/06 at 11:04am

I thought that WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF? was always the title of the play. Disney wouldn't allow the melody of the song to be used in the play because of the play's "adult" nature. Every time I've seen VIRGINIA WOOLF the melody of "Here We Go Round The Mulberry Bush" was used for the tune.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 6/4/06 at 12:11pm

I think the name always was supposed to be "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" - that Disney thing is a myth.

I believe in the film and in the recent revival it was sung to the tune of "Big Bag Wolf", and I'm pretty sure the script specifies that - not 100% though. It definitely was not "Mulberry Bush..."

[philcrosby]

Posted: 6/5/06 at 8:28am

I saw the revival in the 70s with Colleen Dewhurst and Ben Gazzara and it was amazing. In that production, the song was definitely sung to the tune of "Mulberry Bush."

I am sorry that I missed Turner and Irwin, two of my favorite actors. I have to give Kathleen Turner a lot of credit. She has taken living with what could be a debilitating disease and proved you don't need to be limited by it. Brava.

[best12bars]

Posted: 6/5/06 at 9:06am

The song was sung to "Mulberry Bush" in the movie too, and the rights were not granted by Disney to use their song in the film.

I always thought of the song in the play as an "inside joke" that the audience doesn't get and isn't supposed to. We're not let in on the joke, only the punchline. We weren't a part of that game where they told the joke.

Just as we're not let in on why George & Martha play these mean-spirited little games with each other. I don't think they're living in dream worlds so much as they are living in constant competition and opposition with each other. They're always saying "let's play THIS," or "do you wanna play THAT?" etc. Mike Nichols brought this out a lot more in the movie and the way it was directed.

Their lives are exposed and almost too much to bear without the games. Finally, after much blood-letting, they realize that to play little games with each other the way they do, in such a violent spiteful way, will destroy them and everyone around them.

At the end when George sings the song to her again, and Martha answers, "I am, George. I am." I think she's saying she's afraid of these games and the inside jokes and the horribly disfunctional way they live their lives. And from the emotional rubble all around them, there is a tiny ray of hope that the games and the roll-playing wars will stop, once and for all.

Updated On: 6/5/06 at 09:06 AM

[daredevil]

Posted: 6/5/06 at 11:04am

I would agree with the last poster, and go even further. To me, there is almost a sense of submission in the "I am". As if she is saying she is ready to become his wife, in a more traditional way. But a lot depends on how the reader interprets it, or how the actress says it. I saw the original with Hagen and Hill, and after the guests left, there was very much a sense from Hill that George was in control. In the final few lines, he was very gentle but strong. My memory of Uta Hagen saying "I am" was that it was as if she was starting, just starting to cry. There was a vulnerability in her voice that she had not showed through the whole evening.
That of course is a memory from almost 44 years ago, but I remember being stunned by her final moment.

[philcrosby]

Posted: 6/5/06 at 11:41am

I think the monumental revelation of the work is that George is, has been, and always will be "in control." I think the ray of hope at the end is that perhaps the games are over, and that they can go on to live more honest, though not necessarily happier, lives going forward. IMHO, anyway.

[Flahooley]

Posted: 6/5/06 at 6:31pm

I have to say that this is one of the most thoughtful, enlightening and intelligent threads I've ever read on B'wyworld.com

Kudos to best12bars and munkustrap178 for such clear and thoughtful interpretations.

...anyway...

There have been lot of famous Martha and Georges. My imagination goes crazy thinking of what Elaine Strich was like in the role. I saw her brilliant peformance in DELICATE BALANCE. But Marth is the role I wish I'd seen her tackle.

Did anyone see her do it?

[Tirso de Molina]

Posted: 6/5/06 at 8:41pm

What I liked most about Irwin and Turner was the subtle yet unmistakeable way in which the audience could never forget that the game they were playing was with each other, and that there is a real (however perverse) bond between them. There were wonderful little moments where they would make eye contact and it was crystal-clear that they shared the same opinion of Nick and Honey (especially Nick). I've never seen that part of their relationship brought out better.

Did anyone see David Suchet and Diana Rigg do the play? I heard they were great.

[WickedGeek28]

Posted: 6/5/06 at 9:07pm

Just finished reading the play this evening and all I can possibly utter is "Wow." It is brilliantly written and I wonder why schools can't read this instead of dull plays that don'y create a strong impact.

The ending was moving and tragic and it felt so exhausting, as it should for being dawn!

The character that I found I favored was Nick, he seemed to be the only "normal" one. And I did not see the revival, but jsut pictures of David correspond do well with the text, as does the rest of the cast. I wish I saw it before it closed.

My question is: Honey's "imaginary" pregnancy. Does it also represent illusions and such?

Munk, you are amazing at understanding this play. Thank you for the thorough posts. :)

Updated On: 6/5/06 at 09:07 PM

[Dollypop]

Posted: 6/5/06 at 9:15pm

It's interesting to note that this play was written during the "Cold War" and that the two principal characters bear names of the Father of Our Country and his wife. Also, Nick could be construed as Nikita Kruschev's name.

I've always felt that Honey's pregnancy represented blowing up our dreams beyond expectations and then losing them.

[WickedGeek28]

Posted: 6/5/06 at 9:20pm

I also thought it was a dream / reality thing. Thanks.

[daredevil]

Posted: 6/7/06 at 12:36pm

Picking up on what Dollypop wrote, the play opened in October of 1962, a time (atleast the way I remember it) of incredible optimism in the U.S. JFK was at his peak in popularity, and was about to tell off Russia in the missile crisis. So the play's statement that we had to be aware of the Nicks, who would use academica for total self interest and destroy old values seemed like an odd warning at the time.
Yet if you interpret Nick as the non feeling, money grubbing opportunist, who openly mocks George's values, was the warning prophetic? Are the Nicks of today, people like Jack Welsh, or say Dick Grasso, people who have retired with an excess of money, and atleast to me, offer no sense of their own place as part of the cosmos, instead they simply bask in the ostentatiousness of their wealth. If you agree with this, you can probably cast your own Nick in today's world.
So does that mean the Nicks have ultimately "won" and the values that George believes worth fighting for, unltimately defeated?

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 6/7/06 at 12:52pm

The link here is to a Teacher Guide from the recent Alley Theatre production. It's full of goodies and some fun facts about the show--some of which have been mentioned in this thread.

It's a pdf, so you need Adobe, which is a FREE download http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html
Most new computers already have Adobe or the like.
WAOVW? Teacher Guide