What do you think?
Rate this book
Who's Afraid of Viginia Woolf?
"Twelve times a week," answered Uta Hagen when asked how often she'd like to play Martha in Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? In the same way, audiences and critics alike could not get enough of Edward Albee's masterful play. A dark comedy, it portrays husband and wife George and Martha in a searing night of dangerous fun and games. By the evening's end, a stunning, almost unbearable revelation provides a climax that has shocked audiences for years. With the play's razor-sharp dialogue and the stripping away of social pretense, Newsweek rightly foresaw Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? as "a brilliantly original work of art--an excoriating theatrical experience, surging with shocks of recognition and dramatic fire [that] will be igniting Broadway for some time to come."
Hardcover
First published January 1, 1962
475 people are currently reading
65799 people want to read
About the author
Edward Albee
187 books581 followersNoted American playwright Edward Franklin Albee explored the darker aspects of human relationships in plays like
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
(1962) and
Three Tall Women
(1991), which won his third Pulitzer Prize.
People know Edward Franklin Albee III for works, including The Zoo Story , The Sandbox and The American Dream .
He well crafted his works, considered often unsympathetic examinations of the modern condition. His early works reflected a mastery and Americanization of the theater of the absurd, which found its peak in European playwrights, such as Jean Genet, Samuel Barclay Beckett, and Eugène Ionesco. Younger Pulitzer Prize-winner Paula Vogel credits daring mix of theatricalism and biting dialogue of Albee with helping to reinvent the postwar theater in the early 1960s. Dedication of Albee to continuing to evolve his voice — as evidenced in later productions such as The Goat or Who Is Sylvia? (2000) — also routinely marks him as distinct of his era.
Albee described his work as "an examination of the American Scene, an attack on the substitution of artificial for real values in our society, a condemnation of complacency, cruelty, and emasculation and vacuity, a stand against the fiction that everything in this slipping land of ours is peachy-keen."
People know Edward Franklin Albee III for works, including The Zoo Story , The Sandbox and The American Dream .
He well crafted his works, considered often unsympathetic examinations of the modern condition. His early works reflected a mastery and Americanization of the theater of the absurd, which found its peak in European playwrights, such as Jean Genet, Samuel Barclay Beckett, and Eugène Ionesco. Younger Pulitzer Prize-winner Paula Vogel credits daring mix of theatricalism and biting dialogue of Albee with helping to reinvent the postwar theater in the early 1960s. Dedication of Albee to continuing to evolve his voice — as evidenced in later productions such as The Goat or Who Is Sylvia? (2000) — also routinely marks him as distinct of his era.
Albee described his work as "an examination of the American Scene, an attack on the substitution of artificial for real values in our society, a condemnation of complacency, cruelty, and emasculation and vacuity, a stand against the fiction that everything in this slipping land of ours is peachy-keen."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,971 reviews
May 28, 2016
This is, quite simply, one of my all time favourite plays. There is a film version, with Burton and Taylor as the two main characters, and while this isn’t a bad version (and it is in glorious black and white) I think that film struggles with words and this is a wordy play. And then there is that bizarre scene when they leave the house which makes no sense at all
I first read this play in high school and had to do a reading of the play in front of the class. Naturally, I was Nick, as the teacher was George. There is a nice fact that Albee is supposed to have said he had no idea of the significance of calling his major characters George and Martha – and definitely did not mean any reference to the first President of the United States and his missus. I find this a little hard to believe – either way, fate has stepped in and this fact remains, intentional or otherwise. I've always thought it adds something interesting to the play.
This might as well be two plays. On the surface there is a couple who look like they are about to tear each other apart. This reads like a ‘moments before the divorce’ play – and you would be stretched to find a play in which there are deeper feelings of hostility or more savage attacks between a married couple. But this is only on a surface level. The depth of affection and love between George and Martha is really the point of the play – the games they play are quite literally played so as to keep each other sane.
And this is not the only contradiction between our initial impressions and ‘reality’. Honey (has there ever been a more perfect name?) comes across at the start of the play as a mousey little moron of a wife, who puffs up with child to get her hands on a husband only to deflate again once the ring is on her finger. To look at her you might think she was completely incapable of sustaining a pregnancy and that this is the point – but actually, her life is spent having to drink brandy (never mix, never worry) to end a constant string of pregnancies.
This, of course, stands in stunning contrast to Martha, who comes across as the earth mother - but in reality is incapable of having children.
George comes across as a pathetic creature at the start of the play, unable to satisfy his wife who considers him so ineffectual that she doesn't even pretend to hide her flirtations with other men – but by the end we realise that he has completely controlled all of the action in the entire play and everything that has happened has happened due to his choices and his decisions. There are possibly few modern plays with a more God like character. More than this, everything that happens, happens due to his great love of Martha – something that seems incomprehensible at the start of the play as they are tearing strips off each other.
I went to see this play a year or so ago and was almost reduced to tears towards the end. The older I get the more I find that the sorts of things that are most likely to make me want to cry are not the sorts of things that might have had that affect on me when I was young. Then I would have been just as likely to have become upset over unrequited love or such - something I find a little dull now. Today I find what is almost too painful to handle is love that is based on a deep acceptance of who we are – if someone can love us for our scars, for ourselves – warts and all - I am almost invariably reduced to tears. At the end of Therapy when the main character kisses the mastectomy scar of what had been his childhood sweetheart I was virtually a blubbering mess. But of course, such love only exists in fiction - and that is, perhaps, its main role.
Fortunately, I’m too much of a boy to be caught crying in theatres – particularly over plays I know quite so well as I know this one (I must have read it a dozen times over the years). All the same, watching Gary McDonald recite the requiem mass at the end of the play as Martha realises that her son is truly dead and must remain so for them to continue to have any access to him at all was as close as I would like to be to tears in a grossly public place.
This is a truly devastating play, a play that shines and shines, a work of sheer power and genius. It is also one of the funniest plays I’ve ever seen. I don’t think it is possible to love this play any more than I do.
I first read this play in high school and had to do a reading of the play in front of the class. Naturally, I was Nick, as the teacher was George. There is a nice fact that Albee is supposed to have said he had no idea of the significance of calling his major characters George and Martha – and definitely did not mean any reference to the first President of the United States and his missus. I find this a little hard to believe – either way, fate has stepped in and this fact remains, intentional or otherwise. I've always thought it adds something interesting to the play.
This might as well be two plays. On the surface there is a couple who look like they are about to tear each other apart. This reads like a ‘moments before the divorce’ play – and you would be stretched to find a play in which there are deeper feelings of hostility or more savage attacks between a married couple. But this is only on a surface level. The depth of affection and love between George and Martha is really the point of the play – the games they play are quite literally played so as to keep each other sane.
And this is not the only contradiction between our initial impressions and ‘reality’. Honey (has there ever been a more perfect name?) comes across at the start of the play as a mousey little moron of a wife, who puffs up with child to get her hands on a husband only to deflate again once the ring is on her finger. To look at her you might think she was completely incapable of sustaining a pregnancy and that this is the point – but actually, her life is spent having to drink brandy (never mix, never worry) to end a constant string of pregnancies.
This, of course, stands in stunning contrast to Martha, who comes across as the earth mother - but in reality is incapable of having children.
George comes across as a pathetic creature at the start of the play, unable to satisfy his wife who considers him so ineffectual that she doesn't even pretend to hide her flirtations with other men – but by the end we realise that he has completely controlled all of the action in the entire play and everything that has happened has happened due to his choices and his decisions. There are possibly few modern plays with a more God like character. More than this, everything that happens, happens due to his great love of Martha – something that seems incomprehensible at the start of the play as they are tearing strips off each other.
I went to see this play a year or so ago and was almost reduced to tears towards the end. The older I get the more I find that the sorts of things that are most likely to make me want to cry are not the sorts of things that might have had that affect on me when I was young. Then I would have been just as likely to have become upset over unrequited love or such - something I find a little dull now. Today I find what is almost too painful to handle is love that is based on a deep acceptance of who we are – if someone can love us for our scars, for ourselves – warts and all - I am almost invariably reduced to tears. At the end of Therapy when the main character kisses the mastectomy scar of what had been his childhood sweetheart I was virtually a blubbering mess. But of course, such love only exists in fiction - and that is, perhaps, its main role.
Fortunately, I’m too much of a boy to be caught crying in theatres – particularly over plays I know quite so well as I know this one (I must have read it a dozen times over the years). All the same, watching Gary McDonald recite the requiem mass at the end of the play as Martha realises that her son is truly dead and must remain so for them to continue to have any access to him at all was as close as I would like to be to tears in a grossly public place.
This is a truly devastating play, a play that shines and shines, a work of sheer power and genius. It is also one of the funniest plays I’ve ever seen. I don’t think it is possible to love this play any more than I do.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 19, 2025
Procreation is the fundamental essence of human life. For this reason, all humans go through the various stages of life, hoping that when they are no longer in the world, someone will be there to carry on their legacy. But what happens to a couple that does not have a child? What should the couple hope for when the very essence of their being refuses to give them anything? It is this theme that the play Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? The American writer Edward Albee interacts alongside.
The play revolves around a childless couple, Martha and George, who are opposites. Martha is aggressive, dominant, and of a bullying nature, while George is timid and passive. They are a middle-aged couple without children. Their primary target in this drama is their neighbors, whom they attempt to deceive by creating fabricated scenarios about their son. This fact makes their life empty, which they try to fill in by playing mind games. They keep arguing about their non-existent son and create a dream situation around themselves. The crux of the play comes when Nick puts an end to announcing their son's death.
The play is deeply psychological. The title of the game is symbolic. Does it say who's afraid of Virginia Woolf? Virginia Woolf's writings were based on the Stream of Consciousness theme. It is as if the characters were trying to say they are not scared of the new stream-of-consciousness wave that swept society.
Overall, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf is a compelling piece of literature.
The play revolves around a childless couple, Martha and George, who are opposites. Martha is aggressive, dominant, and of a bullying nature, while George is timid and passive. They are a middle-aged couple without children. Their primary target in this drama is their neighbors, whom they attempt to deceive by creating fabricated scenarios about their son. This fact makes their life empty, which they try to fill in by playing mind games. They keep arguing about their non-existent son and create a dream situation around themselves. The crux of the play comes when Nick puts an end to announcing their son's death.
The play is deeply psychological. The title of the game is symbolic. Does it say who's afraid of Virginia Woolf? Virginia Woolf's writings were based on the Stream of Consciousness theme. It is as if the characters were trying to say they are not scared of the new stream-of-consciousness wave that swept society.
Overall, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf is a compelling piece of literature.
May 9, 2025
Comes a time - if you manage to live long enough - when this play is performed once or twice in the events of Every Childless Marriage.
George (in a whisper): Martha, whose side are you on - mine or the WORLD's?
Martha (loudly): Quite frankly, George, the world's got its head screwed on right, and you don't!
Isn't that how an infuriated wife would answer a mousy, CHRISTIAN husband? After all, the Good Book tells us to try to return good for ill, doesn't it?
What if George were only trying to do that (just sayin')?
***
We all know those lines aren't in the play.
And we all know that in reality the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
And life, Christian or not, must go on, knowing that.
Hey, the world is fulla squeaky wheels out there now, huh?
Maybe we're in big trouble.
Cause the goats are butting sheep now with intent to kill.
Mama always told me there's be days like this...
But EVERY day?
No way, mama.
If you can't be good, be nice, is now an archaic slogan, or even loving one another.
Nowadays everyone has to damn with very faint praise indeed, or you're not grown up.
Whatever happened to change all the old ways, can you tell me?
***
You know, our little cockatiel used to show off (he died of cardiac arrest yesterday, bless him).
He always ended our fractious flare-ups with a show of pure positivity! The sun is always shining SOMEWHERE, he seemed to add to our arguments…
He'd stand on the opening to his cage - spread his beautiful grey, white and yellow plumage wide - and stoop low to us. “Kiss and make up!”
I think he did that in thanks partly for the seeds, treats and love we gave him each day.
But maybe he was really showing us that the world out there sometimes gets very ugly -
But that if there's a little beauty in it -
Then, as Robert Browning once wrote of that moment:
God's in His Heaven:
All's right with the world!
George (in a whisper): Martha, whose side are you on - mine or the WORLD's?
Martha (loudly): Quite frankly, George, the world's got its head screwed on right, and you don't!
Isn't that how an infuriated wife would answer a mousy, CHRISTIAN husband? After all, the Good Book tells us to try to return good for ill, doesn't it?
What if George were only trying to do that (just sayin')?
***
We all know those lines aren't in the play.
And we all know that in reality the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
And life, Christian or not, must go on, knowing that.
Hey, the world is fulla squeaky wheels out there now, huh?
Maybe we're in big trouble.
Cause the goats are butting sheep now with intent to kill.
Mama always told me there's be days like this...
But EVERY day?
No way, mama.
If you can't be good, be nice, is now an archaic slogan, or even loving one another.
Nowadays everyone has to damn with very faint praise indeed, or you're not grown up.
Whatever happened to change all the old ways, can you tell me?
***
You know, our little cockatiel used to show off (he died of cardiac arrest yesterday, bless him).
He always ended our fractious flare-ups with a show of pure positivity! The sun is always shining SOMEWHERE, he seemed to add to our arguments…
He'd stand on the opening to his cage - spread his beautiful grey, white and yellow plumage wide - and stoop low to us. “Kiss and make up!”
I think he did that in thanks partly for the seeds, treats and love we gave him each day.
But maybe he was really showing us that the world out there sometimes gets very ugly -
But that if there's a little beauty in it -
Then, as Robert Browning once wrote of that moment:
God's in His Heaven:
All's right with the world!
September 18, 2017
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.
February 10, 2023
George: Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf?
Martha: I am, George. I am.
Martha: Truth or illusion, George; you don't know the difference.
George: No, but we must carry on as though we did.
Martha: Amen.
The fiftieth anniversary production of the play, which is one of the greatest plays ever written, a masterpiece of the theater.
https://www.playbill.com/video/highli...
The story of an important night in the lives of two academic couples, George and Martha, older, and Nick and Honey, new to the small college. Their meeting takes place after a drunken faculty party, very late, and goes on all night til dawn. The showcase here is the older couple, who treat each other both viciously and amusingly. They use language to maim each other, but also to amuse each other. They invent “games” such as Get the Guest or Hump the Host, through which they hurt each other, but also hurt their guests. But do they love each other? Can they heal?
And alcohol is present on every page, they never stop drinking:
“. . . we cry, and we take our tears, and we put 'em in the ice box, in the goddamn ice trays until they're all frozen and then. . . we put them. . . in our. . . drinks.”
So it all appears initially to be uselessly mean, cleverly drunken chatter, but there’s a method in the madness, to get beneath the small talk to the meaning of life, what they need to keep their relationships alive and thriving: To do away with surface chatter and really live and love each other. To shatter the illusions through which they have been living. If possible.
Honey: (Apologetically, holding up her brandy bottle) I peel labels.
George: We all peel labels, sweetie; and when you get through the skin, all three layers, through the muscle, slosh aside the organs (An aside to Nick), them which is still sloshable--(Back to Honey) and get down to bone. . . you know what you do then?
Honey: (Terribly interested) No!
George: When you get down to bone, you haven't got all the way, yet. There's something inside the bone. . . the marrow. . . and that's what you gotta get at. (A strange smile at Martha)
Who’s afraid of Virginia Woolf? They all are, and we all are. And to not be afraid? How do we achieve that? For that, George and Martha in particular, though Nick and Honey, too, need a Walpurgisnacht, a kind of blood-letting and a violent tearing away of illusions to get to the core of their relationship. And this is the very night when it all goes down, and it isn’t always fun, it can be brutally painful, but it can also be exhilarating theater. Here’s one moment of recognition and clarity for Martha:
"George, who is out somewhere there in the dark, who is good to me - whom I revile, who can keep learning the games we play as quickly as I can change them. Who can make me happy and I do not wish to be happy. And yes, I do wish to be happy. George and Martha: Sad, sad, sad. Whom I will not forgive for having come to rest; for having seen me and having said: ‘Yes, this will do’. Who has made the hideous, the hurting, the insulting mistake of loving. . . me, and must be punished for it. George and Martha. . . Sad, sad, sad."
A kind of symbol for both couples of the illusions they need to face down is the mention of a (non-existent?) child, powerfully and almost surreally, tragicomically, present throughout. There was nothing quite like it in theater before it, and many were since influenced by it, by Albee. I recommend your seeing a production, of course, including the great Academy Award-winning film with Richard Burton, Liz Taylor (who, having been married and divorced three times understood epic marital conflict), George Segal and Sandy Dennis, which I saw again in awe.
Martha: I am, George. I am.
Martha: Truth or illusion, George; you don't know the difference.
George: No, but we must carry on as though we did.
Martha: Amen.
The fiftieth anniversary production of the play, which is one of the greatest plays ever written, a masterpiece of the theater.
https://www.playbill.com/video/highli...
The story of an important night in the lives of two academic couples, George and Martha, older, and Nick and Honey, new to the small college. Their meeting takes place after a drunken faculty party, very late, and goes on all night til dawn. The showcase here is the older couple, who treat each other both viciously and amusingly. They use language to maim each other, but also to amuse each other. They invent “games” such as Get the Guest or Hump the Host, through which they hurt each other, but also hurt their guests. But do they love each other? Can they heal?
And alcohol is present on every page, they never stop drinking:
“. . . we cry, and we take our tears, and we put 'em in the ice box, in the goddamn ice trays until they're all frozen and then. . . we put them. . . in our. . . drinks.”
So it all appears initially to be uselessly mean, cleverly drunken chatter, but there’s a method in the madness, to get beneath the small talk to the meaning of life, what they need to keep their relationships alive and thriving: To do away with surface chatter and really live and love each other. To shatter the illusions through which they have been living. If possible.
Honey: (Apologetically, holding up her brandy bottle) I peel labels.
George: We all peel labels, sweetie; and when you get through the skin, all three layers, through the muscle, slosh aside the organs (An aside to Nick), them which is still sloshable--(Back to Honey) and get down to bone. . . you know what you do then?
Honey: (Terribly interested) No!
George: When you get down to bone, you haven't got all the way, yet. There's something inside the bone. . . the marrow. . . and that's what you gotta get at. (A strange smile at Martha)
Who’s afraid of Virginia Woolf? They all are, and we all are. And to not be afraid? How do we achieve that? For that, George and Martha in particular, though Nick and Honey, too, need a Walpurgisnacht, a kind of blood-letting and a violent tearing away of illusions to get to the core of their relationship. And this is the very night when it all goes down, and it isn’t always fun, it can be brutally painful, but it can also be exhilarating theater. Here’s one moment of recognition and clarity for Martha:
"George, who is out somewhere there in the dark, who is good to me - whom I revile, who can keep learning the games we play as quickly as I can change them. Who can make me happy and I do not wish to be happy. And yes, I do wish to be happy. George and Martha: Sad, sad, sad. Whom I will not forgive for having come to rest; for having seen me and having said: ‘Yes, this will do’. Who has made the hideous, the hurting, the insulting mistake of loving. . . me, and must be punished for it. George and Martha. . . Sad, sad, sad."
A kind of symbol for both couples of the illusions they need to face down is the mention of a (non-existent?) child, powerfully and almost surreally, tragicomically, present throughout. There was nothing quite like it in theater before it, and many were since influenced by it, by Albee. I recommend your seeing a production, of course, including the great Academy Award-winning film with Richard Burton, Liz Taylor (who, having been married and divorced three times understood epic marital conflict), George Segal and Sandy Dennis, which I saw again in awe.
July 3, 2024
[4.8⭐] ¿𝙌𝙪𝙞𝙚́𝙣 𝙩𝙚𝙢𝙚 𝙖 𝙑𝙞𝙧𝙜𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙖 𝙒𝙤𝙤𝙡𝙛? es una una obra de teatro escrita por Edward Albee y estrenada en 1962. La historia se desarrolla en una sola noche en la casa de George y Martha, una pareja madura que lleva 20 años de matrimonio. Después de una fiesta, invitan a una joven pareja, Nick y Honey, a continuar la velada en su hogar a las 2 de la madrugada. A medida que avanza la historia, George y Martha se enredan en un juego de confrontaciones verbales y emocionales, exponiendo sus rencores y secretos más íntimos. Manipulan a Nick y Honey para utilizarlos en sus juegos psicológicos, revelando la profundidad de sus propias inseguridades y desilusiones.
Esta obra había estado entre mis pendientes bastante tiempo y decidí hacer mi examen de Teatro Universal sobre ella (sin duda, un gran acierto de mi parte). En mi caso, me decidí centrar en Martha, así que fue lo que más retuve a la hora de leer esta obra.
Martha es sin duda el personaje principal en la historia y el más complejo de todos. Siento que es gracias a ella que esta obra es tan interesante y tan inolvidable.
Es una mujer extrovertida y que no teme expresar sus opiniones, por más duras que sean. Además, tiene problemas con el alcohol, lo que se convierte en una fuente de conflicto a lo largo de la obra (George siempre le saca en cara que es una alcohólica). También, es olvidadiza y dispersa, a menudo va dejando vasos medio vacíos por toda la casa y su comportamiento es desorganizado y espontáneo (no le avisa a su marido que ha invitado a una pareja a las dos de la mañana a su hogar). Su agresividad y franqueza son evidentes en sus interacciones, no dudando en lanzar insultos y confrontaciones directas (hasta llega a golpear y a escupir a su marido).
A pesar de su dureza, Martha es una persona vulnerable; es profundamente sensible y sus acciones reflejan su dolor interno y sus inseguridades, esto se ve reflejado especialmente al final de la obra, cuando se quiebra por completo. También, considero que es importante mencionar que es una personalidad competitiva y coqueta, así que utiliza estas características como mecanismos de defensa para ocultar su pesimismo y desilusión con su vida y matrimonio.
La obra pertenece al teatro del absurdo y el realismo psicológico. Además, la obra incorpora elementos del teatro de la crueldad, en donde se busca impactar profundamente al espectador mediante la intensificación de las emociones y la exploración de la oscuridad humana. Albee refleja esta influencia al presentar escenas de intenso conflicto y brutal honestidad emocional: las confrontaciones verbales entre George y Martha, los juegos psicológicos con Nick y Honey y las agresiones físicas. Todo esto busca que el público experimente un shock y una confrontación con la realidad más cruda y visceral.
La configuración dramática de Martha está MUY bien desarrollada. Sus acciones y diálogos revelan una profunda insatisfacción y lucha interna, siendo la causante de muchos de los conflictos y revelaciones en la obra. Su relación con George es central, caracterizada por una dinámica de poder y conflicto constante. Sin duda, el dramaturgo logra crear un personaje verosímil, efectivo y resonante que logra captar la complejidad de las relaciones humanas y la lucha por la identidad y el significado.
Finalmente, puedo decir que ¿𝙌𝙪𝙞𝙚́𝙣 𝙩𝙚𝙢𝙚 𝙖 𝙑𝙞𝙧𝙜𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙖 𝙒𝙤𝙤𝙡𝙛? es una obra realmente fuerte, potente y con un gran significado. Martha, como personaje central, es una creación magistral de Albee, que deja una impresión duradera por su complejidad y humanidad. La obra te lleva a un viaje psicológico que desafía al espectador a confrontar las verdades dolorosas de la vida y el amor.
Esta obra había estado entre mis pendientes bastante tiempo y decidí hacer mi examen de Teatro Universal sobre ella (sin duda, un gran acierto de mi parte). En mi caso, me decidí centrar en Martha, así que fue lo que más retuve a la hora de leer esta obra.
Martha es sin duda el personaje principal en la historia y el más complejo de todos. Siento que es gracias a ella que esta obra es tan interesante y tan inolvidable.
Es una mujer extrovertida y que no teme expresar sus opiniones, por más duras que sean. Además, tiene problemas con el alcohol, lo que se convierte en una fuente de conflicto a lo largo de la obra (George siempre le saca en cara que es una alcohólica). También, es olvidadiza y dispersa, a menudo va dejando vasos medio vacíos por toda la casa y su comportamiento es desorganizado y espontáneo (no le avisa a su marido que ha invitado a una pareja a las dos de la mañana a su hogar). Su agresividad y franqueza son evidentes en sus interacciones, no dudando en lanzar insultos y confrontaciones directas (hasta llega a golpear y a escupir a su marido).
A pesar de su dureza, Martha es una persona vulnerable; es profundamente sensible y sus acciones reflejan su dolor interno y sus inseguridades, esto se ve reflejado especialmente al final de la obra, cuando se quiebra por completo. También, considero que es importante mencionar que es una personalidad competitiva y coqueta, así que utiliza estas características como mecanismos de defensa para ocultar su pesimismo y desilusión con su vida y matrimonio.
La obra pertenece al teatro del absurdo y el realismo psicológico. Además, la obra incorpora elementos del teatro de la crueldad, en donde se busca impactar profundamente al espectador mediante la intensificación de las emociones y la exploración de la oscuridad humana. Albee refleja esta influencia al presentar escenas de intenso conflicto y brutal honestidad emocional: las confrontaciones verbales entre George y Martha, los juegos psicológicos con Nick y Honey y las agresiones físicas. Todo esto busca que el público experimente un shock y una confrontación con la realidad más cruda y visceral.
La configuración dramática de Martha está MUY bien desarrollada. Sus acciones y diálogos revelan una profunda insatisfacción y lucha interna, siendo la causante de muchos de los conflictos y revelaciones en la obra. Su relación con George es central, caracterizada por una dinámica de poder y conflicto constante. Sin duda, el dramaturgo logra crear un personaje verosímil, efectivo y resonante que logra captar la complejidad de las relaciones humanas y la lucha por la identidad y el significado.
Finalmente, puedo decir que ¿𝙌𝙪𝙞𝙚́𝙣 𝙩𝙚𝙢𝙚 𝙖 𝙑𝙞𝙧𝙜𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙖 𝙒𝙤𝙤𝙡𝙛? es una obra realmente fuerte, potente y con un gran significado. Martha, como personaje central, es una creación magistral de Albee, que deja una impresión duradera por su complejidad y humanidad. La obra te lleva a un viaje psicológico que desafía al espectador a confrontar las verdades dolorosas de la vida y el amor.
December 27, 2011
This play is so fucked. I don't know whether it's genius or madness. Probably both.
August 3, 2025
One of the most comedic and terrifying plays of all time- this play about toxic marital discord is one of the most savage and funniest interpretations of marriage.
The story of Martha and George will forever linger for any reader or viewer of its iconic film and theater adaptations. The premise is about the older boozy couple preying upon the unsuspecting couple, Honey and Nick their sadistic games of truth or dare.
Part dark comedy of a couple who's gotten way to used to each other's sadism and masochism, and a wicked evening of goading and fun and games turns into a horrifying and profoundly sad, meditation on loss and grief. It’s a play about how love endures, how love goes wrong.
Also, the play riffs on the toxic and the meditative notions relationships of all types, especially with themes of aging, sexism, and even LGBTQ undertones are way more apparent in the play than the film.
Martha is predatory and sadistic towards both Nick and Honey. George’s characterization hovers between a masochist and a sadist who enjoys to punish and be punished.
I can totally see how this play shocked its audiences, and delighted gay men.
I even read that actor Henry Fonda had been interested in acting in the play as gay characters. It is all CAMP, with a capital C- until the fun stops.
The inclusion of the indomitable Bette Davis being imitated at the beginning of the play foreshadows and also underscores the queer sensibilities of Albee’s dark tale. Also Davis’ roles of women who were sadistic to their men further explores its queer sensibilities and power.
I have never seen this live, but the Mike Nichols film version starring the gorgeous Elizabeth Taylor as Martha; and the viewer can see that she had thrown all shreds of vanity off herself. She is one minute a seductress using all bits of sexuality to seduce Nick- a heartless gorgon when she resents George, finally a babbling and tragic figure once George forces her to submit to his will.
The brutal performance that Taylor's real life spouse, Richard Burton inflicts as George will crawl under your skin as the film ends.
Miss Taylor won her deserved second Oscar in an iconic performance that takes its place among the greatest of the screen.
Fun fact: Edward Albee originally wanted Bette Davis herself in the role of Martha. Known for also playing roles with a lack of vanity, Bette Davis was also a friend and a fan of Miss Taylor’s. I have never read Miss Davis criticizing Miss Taylor’s performance as Martha- this leads me to believe she approved.
I would read O’Neil’s Long Day’s Journey into Night before reading this play because of their parallels. And both films feature indelible performances from their leading women.
The story of Martha and George will forever linger for any reader or viewer of its iconic film and theater adaptations. The premise is about the older boozy couple preying upon the unsuspecting couple, Honey and Nick their sadistic games of truth or dare.
Part dark comedy of a couple who's gotten way to used to each other's sadism and masochism, and a wicked evening of goading and fun and games turns into a horrifying and profoundly sad, meditation on loss and grief. It’s a play about how love endures, how love goes wrong.
Also, the play riffs on the toxic and the meditative notions relationships of all types, especially with themes of aging, sexism, and even LGBTQ undertones are way more apparent in the play than the film.
Martha is predatory and sadistic towards both Nick and Honey. George’s characterization hovers between a masochist and a sadist who enjoys to punish and be punished.
I can totally see how this play shocked its audiences, and delighted gay men.
I even read that actor Henry Fonda had been interested in acting in the play as gay characters. It is all CAMP, with a capital C- until the fun stops.
The inclusion of the indomitable Bette Davis being imitated at the beginning of the play foreshadows and also underscores the queer sensibilities of Albee’s dark tale. Also Davis’ roles of women who were sadistic to their men further explores its queer sensibilities and power.
I have never seen this live, but the Mike Nichols film version starring the gorgeous Elizabeth Taylor as Martha; and the viewer can see that she had thrown all shreds of vanity off herself. She is one minute a seductress using all bits of sexuality to seduce Nick- a heartless gorgon when she resents George, finally a babbling and tragic figure once George forces her to submit to his will.
The brutal performance that Taylor's real life spouse, Richard Burton inflicts as George will crawl under your skin as the film ends.
Miss Taylor won her deserved second Oscar in an iconic performance that takes its place among the greatest of the screen.
Fun fact: Edward Albee originally wanted Bette Davis herself in the role of Martha. Known for also playing roles with a lack of vanity, Bette Davis was also a friend and a fan of Miss Taylor’s. I have never read Miss Davis criticizing Miss Taylor’s performance as Martha- this leads me to believe she approved.
I would read O’Neil’s Long Day’s Journey into Night before reading this play because of their parallels. And both films feature indelible performances from their leading women.
December 16, 2020
“I don’t have a sense of humor. I have a fine sense of the ridiculous but no sense of humor.”
I found this premise blatantly implausible: why would you STAY when the other couple start maliciously attacking each other??? There’s no way that would happen, right? Well, unless, of course, you’re being held hostage... which these two weren’t....
The writing is good though. Sharp and vicious and twisted.
I found this premise blatantly implausible: why would you STAY when the other couple start maliciously attacking each other??? There’s no way that would happen, right? Well, unless, of course, you’re being held hostage... which these two weren’t....
The writing is good though. Sharp and vicious and twisted.
September 26, 2020
What a great reading experience this classic play is, even on paper: the intensity of the interaction between the four characters just is fabulous. Of course, what is shown to us is not really uplifting: the scorn that goes on and off in the long-married couple, is frightening; and also in the younger couple tensions are running high. The game that is being played by all protagonists not only is painstakingly intense but also very perfidious and brutal. But as it turns out the gap between the elder couple in reality is rather fake; deep down the two are very intimately connected with each other through a self fabricated, fictional story. Though almost 60 years old, this still is a vigorous, masterful play. I loved every moment of it.
Bonus: look up the filmed version with Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor, sparks are literally flying around. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGI4R....
Bonus: look up the filmed version with Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor, sparks are literally flying around. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGI4R....
November 25, 2022
**4.5 stars**
“Like the moon shining bright
Up high with all its grace,
I can only show you at night
And hide half of my face.”
― Ana Claudia Antunes, (Pierrot & Columbine)
“Like European Absurdists, Albee has tried to dramatize the reality of man’s condition, but whereas Sartre, Camus, Beckett, Genet, Ionesco, and Pinter present reality in all its logical absurdity, Albee has been preoccupied with illusions that screen man from reality.”
I bought this one at a thrift store back at a time when I hadn't read any of Virginia Woolf, so the title took me unguarded and the book resided on my shelf for too long. I then read Her and brought up the courage to read this. The play is disappointing in that aspect. You don't need to read Her to devour this one. Albee initially had thought of the title to be “The Exorcism” (the title later assigned to Act 3) but arrived at “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” after discovering the phrase as graffiti in a Greenwich Village bar. Albee has explicated his title with its reference to the wordsmith centrally concerned with the nature of reality, to mean “ Who is afraid of facing life without illusions? ”
Disappointed as I was, it was a pretty amazing read in itself. Asked to describe his work in progress that would become “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?”, Edward Albee claimed his work to be a “sort of grotesque comedy” concerning that deals with “the substitution of artificial for real values in this society of ours.” That does sound quite a mouthful, but really is drastically appropriate.
“Dashed hopes and good intentions. Good, better, best, bested.”
There are two dysfunctional families in the play, a total of four characters: For me, two are absolutely disgusting, one demands sympathy but doesn't deserve it, and one probably will remind you at times of the irksome element which is present in every family tale. The similarity of the families is they reciprocate the roles in a love-hate relationship. The contradiction is that while the older one interacts acerbically amongst themselves while in others' company and a bit warmly when left alone, (probably) the process is reversed for the other couple. The second one, (or so the play suggests) gets unknowingly involved with the previous one in a Game. A harrowing, dark one.
“You want to dance with me, angel tits?”
The storyline feels way too modern, for something being written in the backdrop of the 60s. The four characters here constitute a miniature society, and everything that happens in the play is way too relevant in the present time. Complaints of increasingly frightening feelings of self-estrangement and depersonalization are very frequently voiced by the individuals entrapped in collusion. That happened back at that time, and that happens even now. I don't reckon it won't make much of a movie if the speech is garbled, for the complementary (Watzlawick) conversation is the best part of this play. Strangely depressing and diminishing in parts, but yet, probably for the best.
Anything more will act as a spoiler. So read this book. It is way too dark for a play, just hope you are not deceived.
“You don't see anything, do you? You see everything but the goddamn mind; you see all the little specs and crap, but you don't see what goes on, do you?”
“Like the moon shining bright
Up high with all its grace,
I can only show you at night
And hide half of my face.”
― Ana Claudia Antunes, (Pierrot & Columbine)
“Like European Absurdists, Albee has tried to dramatize the reality of man’s condition, but whereas Sartre, Camus, Beckett, Genet, Ionesco, and Pinter present reality in all its logical absurdity, Albee has been preoccupied with illusions that screen man from reality.”
I bought this one at a thrift store back at a time when I hadn't read any of Virginia Woolf, so the title took me unguarded and the book resided on my shelf for too long. I then read Her and brought up the courage to read this. The play is disappointing in that aspect. You don't need to read Her to devour this one. Albee initially had thought of the title to be “The Exorcism” (the title later assigned to Act 3) but arrived at “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” after discovering the phrase as graffiti in a Greenwich Village bar. Albee has explicated his title with its reference to the wordsmith centrally concerned with the nature of reality, to mean “ Who is afraid of facing life without illusions? ”
Disappointed as I was, it was a pretty amazing read in itself. Asked to describe his work in progress that would become “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?”, Edward Albee claimed his work to be a “sort of grotesque comedy” concerning that deals with “the substitution of artificial for real values in this society of ours.” That does sound quite a mouthful, but really is drastically appropriate.
“Dashed hopes and good intentions. Good, better, best, bested.”
There are two dysfunctional families in the play, a total of four characters: For me, two are absolutely disgusting, one demands sympathy but doesn't deserve it, and one probably will remind you at times of the irksome element which is present in every family tale. The similarity of the families is they reciprocate the roles in a love-hate relationship. The contradiction is that while the older one interacts acerbically amongst themselves while in others' company and a bit warmly when left alone, (probably) the process is reversed for the other couple. The second one, (or so the play suggests) gets unknowingly involved with the previous one in a Game. A harrowing, dark one.
“You want to dance with me, angel tits?”
The storyline feels way too modern, for something being written in the backdrop of the 60s. The four characters here constitute a miniature society, and everything that happens in the play is way too relevant in the present time. Complaints of increasingly frightening feelings of self-estrangement and depersonalization are very frequently voiced by the individuals entrapped in collusion. That happened back at that time, and that happens even now. I don't reckon it won't make much of a movie if the speech is garbled, for the complementary (Watzlawick) conversation is the best part of this play. Strangely depressing and diminishing in parts, but yet, probably for the best.
Anything more will act as a spoiler. So read this book. It is way too dark for a play, just hope you are not deceived.
“You don't see anything, do you? You see everything but the goddamn mind; you see all the little specs and crap, but you don't see what goes on, do you?”
July 30, 2017
“There's no limit to you, is there?”
Edward Albee, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
This review is not for Edward Albee's brilliant play, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, but for the equally brilliant recording of the original cast with Uta Hagen.
I am a fan of the movie with Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, but much of the humor is missing from the movie. Here, in this recording, we can hear all of Albee's wonderfully dark humor. In the words of Martha: "I thought it was a scream. You laughed your head off ."
Hagen's performance as Martha is legendary and still discussed with reverence to this day. A recording of the play’s original cast, featuring the great Uta Hagen and Arthur Hill, was re-released in 2014. Taped in a studio just a few months into the run, its return offers a rare opportunity to pull back the curtain of time and experience, with a different kind of intimacy, on one of the major theatrical events of the 20th century.
With its cast of just four characters, each with a distinctive voice, taking place in the course of one long, booze-sodden night, in a single setting, the play has minimal action, and if you’ve seen it onstage you’ll be easily able to supply the visual punctuation marks for the few moments that lose something in translation to audio-only format: George’s sudden brandishing of a (fake) gun, or his violent flinging of snapdragons at his wife as their boxing bout moves into the final rounds.
Albee’s writing itself provides all you really need for the play’s visceral intensity to hit home: highly literate, stippled with corrosive wit and bristling with combativeness, it doesn’t really require much in the way of staging to work its wounding magic. All that’s needed are four great actors, and the four who starred in the debut production give performances that, even some 50 years later, still feel fresh, fierce and definitive.
No one will ever outshine Hagen’s Martha.There’s something particularly satisfying about hearing the performance. You can appreciate the mighty range of Hagen’s vocal resources — and her unerring ability to wring every ounce of emotional truth from a line.
Am I gushing? Yes. But rarely has an audio recording of a play moved and affected me like Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf.
Edward Albee, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
This review is not for Edward Albee's brilliant play, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, but for the equally brilliant recording of the original cast with Uta Hagen.
I am a fan of the movie with Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, but much of the humor is missing from the movie. Here, in this recording, we can hear all of Albee's wonderfully dark humor. In the words of Martha: "I thought it was a scream. You laughed your head off ."
Hagen's performance as Martha is legendary and still discussed with reverence to this day. A recording of the play’s original cast, featuring the great Uta Hagen and Arthur Hill, was re-released in 2014. Taped in a studio just a few months into the run, its return offers a rare opportunity to pull back the curtain of time and experience, with a different kind of intimacy, on one of the major theatrical events of the 20th century.
With its cast of just four characters, each with a distinctive voice, taking place in the course of one long, booze-sodden night, in a single setting, the play has minimal action, and if you’ve seen it onstage you’ll be easily able to supply the visual punctuation marks for the few moments that lose something in translation to audio-only format: George’s sudden brandishing of a (fake) gun, or his violent flinging of snapdragons at his wife as their boxing bout moves into the final rounds.
Albee’s writing itself provides all you really need for the play’s visceral intensity to hit home: highly literate, stippled with corrosive wit and bristling with combativeness, it doesn’t really require much in the way of staging to work its wounding magic. All that’s needed are four great actors, and the four who starred in the debut production give performances that, even some 50 years later, still feel fresh, fierce and definitive.
No one will ever outshine Hagen’s Martha.There’s something particularly satisfying about hearing the performance. You can appreciate the mighty range of Hagen’s vocal resources — and her unerring ability to wring every ounce of emotional truth from a line.
Am I gushing? Yes. But rarely has an audio recording of a play moved and affected me like Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf.
November 8, 2019
I will start off with the good. This is a lightning fast play with banter. There are pages of dialogue with each character saying one or two words and it just bounces back and forth. I read this and I haven't seen it, but it would be interesting to see how this plays on stage. I would think it would be even more vicious. I think the dialogue is pretty incredible.
The setting is tight. 3 acts in one home in one room with 4 characters and a whole lot of alcohol. These people get lit and then they worst side comes out. I might have missed it, but I don't understand why this couple is coming over to Martha and George's house at 2am in the morning. It's never explained to me.
Honey is an innocent and she is put through all this horrible behavior. Martha and George have an unhealthy relationship where they do seem to care about each other some, but they love to eviscerate each other constantly. They play games in front of their company and the games are made up things that will hurt the other person.
The tone is just outright yelling and venom, in my opinion. Nick doesn't know what to make of it all and he ends up being drawn into their games and eventually figures out what is happening. I don't know why Martha would invite people over to be so horrible in front of them. These people seem unhinged to me and need some psychological help or something.
The banter was interesting, but this a play that doesn't really interest me. The characters are complex, but there is no joy or heart or anything that touches me in a story. These people are so out of touch with their emotions, the only way they feel something is by riping into each other. It's an intense play.
I have heard of this famous title and I wanted to give it a try, but it really wasn't so much for me. I'm not sure I'll give Edward Albee another go. There are other stories out there I could enjoy. I just don't like all the squabbling constantly in the story. There are so many other plays out there to read. The 60s were an interesting time and they did some strange things as stories at times. Some I enjoy and some I don't. They were the experimental generation.
The setting is tight. 3 acts in one home in one room with 4 characters and a whole lot of alcohol. These people get lit and then they worst side comes out. I might have missed it, but I don't understand why this couple is coming over to Martha and George's house at 2am in the morning. It's never explained to me.
Honey is an innocent and she is put through all this horrible behavior. Martha and George have an unhealthy relationship where they do seem to care about each other some, but they love to eviscerate each other constantly. They play games in front of their company and the games are made up things that will hurt the other person.
The tone is just outright yelling and venom, in my opinion. Nick doesn't know what to make of it all and he ends up being drawn into their games and eventually figures out what is happening. I don't know why Martha would invite people over to be so horrible in front of them. These people seem unhinged to me and need some psychological help or something.
The banter was interesting, but this a play that doesn't really interest me. The characters are complex, but there is no joy or heart or anything that touches me in a story. These people are so out of touch with their emotions, the only way they feel something is by riping into each other. It's an intense play.
I have heard of this famous title and I wanted to give it a try, but it really wasn't so much for me. I'm not sure I'll give Edward Albee another go. There are other stories out there I could enjoy. I just don't like all the squabbling constantly in the story. There are so many other plays out there to read. The 60s were an interesting time and they did some strange things as stories at times. Some I enjoy and some I don't. They were the experimental generation.
November 20, 2024
خوانش صوتی/نمیدونم این چه جادویی بود که انقدر جذبم کرد. در حالت معمول از اینجور نمایشنامهها خوشم نمیاد اما این یه جور عجیبی خوب بود... اینکه همزمان تو یک شب فیلمش (1966) رو هم با بازی فوقالعادهی الیزابت تیلور دیدم هم بی تاثیر نبود. اما بنظرم اگر فقط فیلم یا فقط نماینشنامه رو میخوندم برام ۵ ستاره نمیشد.
کل نمایشنامه گفتگو محوره و از اول تا آخر زن و شوهری دارن جلوی مهموناشون همدیگه رو تحقیر میکنن و کل زندگیشون تو این گفتگو زیر و رو میشه و در نهایت میبینیم که کلا دارن تو توهم زندگی میکنن.
یک سری چیزها هم برام مبهم موند که الان میرم چندتا مقاله درموردش بخونم تا بیشتر زیر زبونم بچشمش.
من از صاقچه گوش دادم و خیلی خیلی اجرای خوب و حرفهای بود با لحنهای بینظیر و انرژی حرفهای.
کل نمایشنامه گفتگو محوره و از اول تا آخر زن و شوهری دارن جلوی مهموناشون همدیگه رو تحقیر میکنن و کل زندگیشون تو این گفتگو زیر و رو میشه و در نهایت میبینیم که کلا دارن تو توهم زندگی میکنن.
یک سری چیزها هم برام مبهم موند که الان میرم چندتا مقاله درموردش بخونم تا بیشتر زیر زبونم بچشمش.
من از صاقچه گوش دادم و خیلی خیلی اجرای خوب و حرفهای بود با لحنهای بینظیر و انرژی حرفهای.
January 24, 2024
I think I would like this more if I saw the actual play but I am happy I read this before jumping into Cocktails with George and Martha which I won in a Goodreads giveaway. Review to come!
March 23, 2015
Holy smokes, this was hard to put down. It's riveting, a little vile, and dramatic to say the least. I'm so excited to talk about it in class this week. I'll probably come back and review it more properly then. Needless to say, this was excellent.
May 25, 2022
نمایشنامه خیلی خیلی عجیبی بود، روراست اگر با سعید همخوانی نکرده بودم و نظرات اونو نمیشنیدم برداشتم ازش خیلی ناقص باقی می موند. سعید نظریه بازی ها رو مطرح کرد و من از بعد اجتماعی سعی کردم دیدگاهم رو توضیح بدم. از چیزی که تصورش رو داشتم عجیب تر پر حرف تر بود این کار. با این وجود من دوستش نداشتم و باهاش ارتباط برقرار نکردم. قطعا کار خیلی خیلی خاصیه اما بمن فرصت نفس کشیدن و فکر کردن نمیداد. تمام تحلیل ها هم با فاصله گرفتن ازش به ذهنم رسید.
کاری نیست که دوباره بخونم یا پیشنهاد کنم. اما اگر خواستید بخونیدش حتما تجربه خاصی خواهید داشت.
کاری نیست که دوباره بخونم یا پیشنهاد کنم. اما اگر خواستید بخونیدش حتما تجربه خاصی خواهید داشت.
May 5, 2012
This falls under that category labelled AWKWARD SOCIAL GATHERING.
You ever been to a party where the host and hostess get totally hammered and spend the rest of the evening humiliating each other? If you haven't, I don't believe you, number one, and number two, you're a lucky bastard. It's awkward and uncomfortable and lemme tell you, it's not much better if you're the drunken host and hostess either. No one's having a good time, no matter how much liquor is consumed, keep that in mind.
The theater around the corner from us was showing this movie recently and I went to see it on the big screen because it's been a really long time since I've seen it and I wondered how I felt about it as an adult. I realized I remembered very little of it to begin with, and I certainly didn't find it nearly as uncomfortable the first time I watched it as I did this time. Oy.
In any case, watching it again made me realize I never read the actual play all the way through, though occasionally we'd be assigned monologues from it in my theater classes, or I'd have to sit through people performing scenes from it from time to time. But I never actually gave Albee's play the attention it deserved. (Certainly if you've seen the movie, you know the play, though they both deserve attention.)
This is truly one messed up little play, and Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton played their characters extremely well. Too well, one might suggest. Volatile was what they were known for, so they filled their roles beautifully.
It's a hard play to read, there are no winners here. You think Charlie Sheen is crazy? George and Martha could be his parents. It's not an easy movie to watch either, because there you have a visual. You want to hate all of the four characters, yet you feel for all four of the characters at the same time. It's very complicated that way, but overall it makes you never want to attend a social gathering ever again.
Probably makes you think twice about hosting one too.
You ever been to a party where the host and hostess get totally hammered and spend the rest of the evening humiliating each other? If you haven't, I don't believe you, number one, and number two, you're a lucky bastard. It's awkward and uncomfortable and lemme tell you, it's not much better if you're the drunken host and hostess either. No one's having a good time, no matter how much liquor is consumed, keep that in mind.
The theater around the corner from us was showing this movie recently and I went to see it on the big screen because it's been a really long time since I've seen it and I wondered how I felt about it as an adult. I realized I remembered very little of it to begin with, and I certainly didn't find it nearly as uncomfortable the first time I watched it as I did this time. Oy.
In any case, watching it again made me realize I never read the actual play all the way through, though occasionally we'd be assigned monologues from it in my theater classes, or I'd have to sit through people performing scenes from it from time to time. But I never actually gave Albee's play the attention it deserved. (Certainly if you've seen the movie, you know the play, though they both deserve attention.)
This is truly one messed up little play, and Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton played their characters extremely well. Too well, one might suggest. Volatile was what they were known for, so they filled their roles beautifully.
It's a hard play to read, there are no winners here. You think Charlie Sheen is crazy? George and Martha could be his parents. It's not an easy movie to watch either, because there you have a visual. You want to hate all of the four characters, yet you feel for all four of the characters at the same time. It's very complicated that way, but overall it makes you never want to attend a social gathering ever again.
Probably makes you think twice about hosting one too.
June 28, 2007
This is, in my opinion, the best play ever written in the 20th century. There's also a great story about how this was the first drama rejected by the Pulitzer Prize committee for "obscenity" (you may have a hard time finding the obscenity in it, though, since it's from 1962). It's basically about two married couples who hang out in the wee hours of the morning following a party on a college campus in New England, but the interesting part is the way one couple tries to screw with the other's minds for their own personal enjoyment. There's waaay more to it than that, but I'll save it for my students. Lots of symbolism, historical references and absurdist influences (and a surprise ending). By the way, like many plays, it's not the greatest "read"; to really do it justice, you have to see it perfromed. I recommend the 1966 film version directed by Mike Nichols, starring Liz Taylor and Richard Burton.
Maybe this shouldn't be on GoodReads. I wish there was a site called GoodPlays or something.
Maybe this shouldn't be on GoodReads. I wish there was a site called GoodPlays or something.
April 29, 2022
نمایشنامهای بود از تظاهر زن و شوهری به داشتن زندگی بینقص که البته خالی از تمسخر و سرکوب یکدیگر هم نبود. برای من اصلا جالب نبود به نظرم خیلی آزاردهنده بود و من به خاطر امتیاز گودریدز خوندم.
July 20, 2024
Clearly a classic. Not very uplifting. But raw stuff .
February 27, 2018
با وجود اینکه ما موجوداتی اجتماعی هستیم اما در شرایط خاصی ممکن است کاملاً غیراجتماعی بشویم. اخلاق را کنار بگذاریم و مثل اجداد بدویمان رفتارهایی نشان بدهیم که فقط از یک نئاندرتال برمیآید. به خودتان نگیرید لطفاً. اما میدانم که اجتماعی بودن، متشخص بودن و رفتارهای همراه با شعور ممکن است تا جایی همراهمان باشد و بعد در وضعیتی ویژه تغییر کنیم. آدمهای این نمایشنامه البته فقط تا جایی و تنها چند قدمی از آن چهرههای خندان با نور ملایمی از شعور اجتماعی دور شدند. ممکن است ما هم یک روز در حضور مهمانانمان چنین کارهایی انجام بدهیم.
در این کتاب بیشتر از داستان، کاراکترها مجذوبتان میکنند. این آدمها را احتمالاً نمیشود به راحتی هر جایی پیدا کرد. به سختی میشود گفت که «منم همینطورم!»، «چقدر شبیه من بود». نمیشود با آنها همذاتپنداری کرد. شکستن مرزها شاید برجستهترین ویژگی این نمایشنامه برای من باشد. فضایی که در آن، آدمها از قالبهایشان بیرون میآیند و چیزی میشوند که در درونیترین پوستهشان وجود دارد. راستش همین رفتارها، بددهنیها و فحشها و واکنش شخصیتها بود که من را تا آخر نمایشنامه با خود کشاند و برد.
در این کتاب بیشتر از داستان، کاراکترها مجذوبتان میکنند. این آدمها را احتمالاً نمیشود به راحتی هر جایی پیدا کرد. به سختی میشود گفت که «منم همینطورم!»، «چقدر شبیه من بود». نمیشود با آنها همذاتپنداری کرد. شکستن مرزها شاید برجستهترین ویژگی این نمایشنامه برای من باشد. فضایی که در آن، آدمها از قالبهایشان بیرون میآیند و چیزی میشوند که در درونیترین پوستهشان وجود دارد. راستش همین رفتارها، بددهنیها و فحشها و واکنش شخصیتها بود که من را تا آخر نمایشنامه با خود کشاند و برد.
March 27, 2021
Znate kako ide, u rolerkosteru mira nema. Ispočetka, mislite da je jurnjava stvar zabave, ali samo ste delom svesni predstojećih krivina u vijugavim tunelima. Uzdizanje i strmoglavi opijaju, raduju, iritiraju i straše, a adrenalin kipti. Okolo se ljudi raspadaju – lica na ivici su poput semafora, treskaju se u egzaltaciji, a poneko i povrati usput.
I to je ovaj tekst: silovita, ubojita vožnja, dramaturški cunami što kosi sve pred sobom i u sebi. A čini se da postava je prosta: čarke dva para; jedan drugom u poseti. Kad ono, kijamet emocija i privlačno-odbojnih stanja, koja, na gomili, skaču na ramena apsurdu. Ne, nije ovo drama o životu profesorčića, tajnama i ljubavnim trouglovima, već o ljudima koji, iako gestom mazni ili drčni, ostaju beznadežno krhki i nesrećni. I ko razume dubinu te priče, da se ovde, iza fasade crnohumorne dramice, preskače preko jama izgubljenosti, zveknuće ga tako obogaćujuća katarza da će možda ipak pomisliti da je pozorište hram. Naravno, uspeh nije zagarantovan.
Ali, srećom, ovekovečeno je jedno izvođenje bez premca: Majkl Nikols režira, glume Elizabet Tejlor, Ričard Barton, Džordž Segal i Sendi Denis. Sve moram spomenuti ne samo zato što je ovo cela ekipa i zato što su svi nominovani za Oskara (od toga dva dobijena), već i zato što se ovo izvođenje premašiti ne može. Samo se može organizovati drukčija vožnja.
I da, koga zanima, neka obrati pažnju na igru-u-igri-u-igri. Osim što su kao eksplozivne bilijarske kugle, junaci iznova prave svakodnevne a groteskne šumove, koji ni ne treba da se dešifruju, već da se dožive dinamično, u promeni. A pitanje uporišta njihovih odnosa sasvim je otvoreno u odnosu na režiju i to je izraz majstorstva: da vam je tekst obuzdan, fiksiran, a toliko otvoren da možete, ostajući verni njemu, istaći sopstvenu verziju.
I to je ovaj tekst: silovita, ubojita vožnja, dramaturški cunami što kosi sve pred sobom i u sebi. A čini se da postava je prosta: čarke dva para; jedan drugom u poseti. Kad ono, kijamet emocija i privlačno-odbojnih stanja, koja, na gomili, skaču na ramena apsurdu. Ne, nije ovo drama o životu profesorčića, tajnama i ljubavnim trouglovima, već o ljudima koji, iako gestom mazni ili drčni, ostaju beznadežno krhki i nesrećni. I ko razume dubinu te priče, da se ovde, iza fasade crnohumorne dramice, preskače preko jama izgubljenosti, zveknuće ga tako obogaćujuća katarza da će možda ipak pomisliti da je pozorište hram. Naravno, uspeh nije zagarantovan.
Ali, srećom, ovekovečeno je jedno izvođenje bez premca: Majkl Nikols režira, glume Elizabet Tejlor, Ričard Barton, Džordž Segal i Sendi Denis. Sve moram spomenuti ne samo zato što je ovo cela ekipa i zato što su svi nominovani za Oskara (od toga dva dobijena), već i zato što se ovo izvođenje premašiti ne može. Samo se može organizovati drukčija vožnja.
I da, koga zanima, neka obrati pažnju na igru-u-igri-u-igri. Osim što su kao eksplozivne bilijarske kugle, junaci iznova prave svakodnevne a groteskne šumove, koji ni ne treba da se dešifruju, već da se dožive dinamično, u promeni. A pitanje uporišta njihovih odnosa sasvim je otvoreno u odnosu na režiju i to je izraz majstorstva: da vam je tekst obuzdan, fiksiran, a toliko otvoren da možete, ostajući verni njemu, istaći sopstvenu verziju.
February 18, 2024
I thought the dinner party episode of The Office was the most tense “couples party” ever… and then I read this play. It was dark and sad but also so witty, and I laughed out loud at multiple points. Go into this one aware of the fact that it was written during a very different time, and there are some moments that are extra uncomfortable given our modern sensibilities, but overall, I would still recommend it.
April 11, 2023
shhh, don't tell anyone I didn't like this. they'll never let me get my english degree
January 24, 2016
I think I'm still processing, but WOW!
"We all peel labels, sweetie; and when you get through the skin, all three layers, through the muscle, slosh aside the organs [...] and get down to bone...you know what you do then?
[...] When you get down to bone, you haven't got all the way, yet. There's something inside the bone...the marrow...and that's what you gotta get at.”
"We all peel labels, sweetie; and when you get through the skin, all three layers, through the muscle, slosh aside the organs [...] and get down to bone...you know what you do then?
[...] When you get down to bone, you haven't got all the way, yet. There's something inside the bone...the marrow...and that's what you gotta get at.”
June 11, 2016
چه کسی از ویرجینیا وولف میترسد؟
حجم دیالوگها بالاتر از کشش متن بود. یعنی، با اینکه همهی دیالوگها در خدمت متنه، اما همهی متن دیالوگه، ناگفتهها دائم توی دیالوگها گفته میشن، هیچ نفسکشی برای مخاطب نیست، و این نفس نکشیدن در خدمت فرم نیست. به خاطر همین نقص، شاهکار ابدی نمیشه دونستش. اما حتما باید خوندش.
حجم دیالوگها بالاتر از کشش متن بود. یعنی، با اینکه همهی دیالوگها در خدمت متنه، اما همهی متن دیالوگه، ناگفتهها دائم توی دیالوگها گفته میشن، هیچ نفسکشی برای مخاطب نیست، و این نفس نکشیدن در خدمت فرم نیست. به خاطر همین نقص، شاهکار ابدی نمیشه دونستش. اما حتما باید خوندش.
December 25, 2020
A great book to study if you want to learn the extent to which dialogue can be used to say everything about a person, place, and time.
May 3, 2022
3.5
Truth and illusion. Who knows the difference...
...but we must carry on as though we did.
A play in three acts, laying bare a middle-aged couple's life, exposing the bitterness, frustration and resentment they feel towards one another.
Dashed hopes, and good intentions. Good, better, best, bested.
A headache inducing couple for sure, as all throughout the play, they either shout, fight or denigrate each other.
Truth and illusion. Who knows the difference...
...but we must carry on as though we did.
A play in three acts, laying bare a middle-aged couple's life, exposing the bitterness, frustration and resentment they feel towards one another.
Dashed hopes, and good intentions. Good, better, best, bested.
A headache inducing couple for sure, as all throughout the play, they either shout, fight or denigrate each other.
June 16, 2025
یک نمایشنامهی بسیار متفاوت و منحصر بفرد! (نسخهی ترجمهشده رو ندیدم، اما با توجه به محتوای کتاب حدس میزنم بسیاریش در ترجمه و سانسور از بین رفته باشه. بنابراین اگر انگلیسی براتون مانع نیست، نسخهی زبان اصلی رو پیشنهاد میکنم.)
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,971 reviews