As an interpretation, this production's described as a major departure (via casting and directorial choices) in terms of the George and Martha dynamic, with George more in the driver's seat from the top, instead of his personal power's ascendancy being relegated to the infamous reversal in act three. I'll be curious to see how that's explored. I've seen most major revivals, including the oddity of Glenda Jackson and John Lithgow, whose brittle repartee turned act one into PRIVATE LIVES. The Dewhurst - Gazzara revival gave us a physically attractive George, rather than the usual cerebral but weakened image. Irwin was harder for me to imagine as Turner's husband, a basic requirement of the text. But he was persuasive, and delivered one of the most searing act threes. A minority opinion I make no apology for: I still love Taylor and Burton, whose chemistry and dynamic successfully balanced the equation the best. The film's line readings (no doubt encouraged or set by Nichols) remain indelible.
Sidebar: Something in the film that the stage versions never provide: the moment in the George and Martha bedroom, very early, pre-Nick and Honey, when they fall on the bed laughing. Because film is a visual medium, that moment, delivered in close-up, both actors reclining, faces inches apart, establishes something in the couple that we hold onto for the rest of the film. Simply seeing their bedroom -- emotional and sexual ground zero -- provides a powerful look at their intimacy, and Nichols used it brilliantly. Just my opinion, but the living room alone must approximate that in entirely different terms. Different mediums, however, and I'm not comparing them per se.
"I'm a comedian, but in my spare time, things bother me." Garry Shandling
Updated On: 9/29/12 at 09:07 AM
