What do you think?
Rate this book
Who's Afraid of Virginia 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."
272 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1962
480 people are currently reading
63.5k people want to read
About the author
Edward Albee
201听books557听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 Eug猫ne 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 鈥� as evidenced in later productions such as The Goat or Who Is Sylvia? (2000) 鈥� 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 Eug猫ne 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 鈥� as evidenced in later productions such as The Goat or Who Is Sylvia? (2000) 鈥� 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 2,762 reviews
October 3, 2021
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, Edward Albee
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? is a play by Edward Albee first staged in 1962.
It examines the breakdown of the marriage of a middle-aged couple, Martha and George.
Late one evening, after a university faculty party, they receive an unwitting younger couple, Nick and Honey, as guests, and draw them into their bitter and frustrated relationship.
The play is in three acts, normally taking a little less than three hours to perform, with two ten minute intermissions.
The title is a pun on the song "Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf?" from Walt Disney's Three Little Pigs (1933), substituting the name of the celebrated English author Virginia Woolf.
Martha and George repeatedly sing this version of the song throughout the play.
鬲丕乇蹖禺 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 禺賵丕賳卮: 爻丕賱 1977賲蹖賱丕丿蹖
毓賳賵丕賳: 趩賴 讴爻蹖 丕夭 賵蹖乇噩蹖賳蹖丕 賵賵賱賮 賲蹖鈥屫必池熦� 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 丕丿賵丕乇丿 丌賱亘蹖貨 賲鬲乇噩賲: 毓亘丿丕賱乇囟丕 丨乇蹖乇蹖貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 亘蹖 賳丕貙 1356貙 丿乇 19氐 賵 181氐貨 賲賵囟賵毓 賳賲丕蹖卮賳丕賲賴 賴丕蹖 賳賵蹖爻賳丿诏丕賳 丕蹖丕賱丕鬲 賲鬲丨丿賴 丌賲乇蹖讴丕 - 爻丿賴 20賲
毓賳賵丕賳: 趩賴 讴爻蹖 丕夭 賵蹖乇噩蹖賳蹖丕 賵賵賱賮 賲蹖鈥屫必池熦� 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 丕丿賵丕乇丿 丌賱亘蹖貨 賲鬲乇噩賲: 爻蹖丕賲讴 诏賱卮蹖乇蹖貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 賯氐蹖丿賴 爻乇丕貙 1384貙 丿乇 180氐貨 卮丕亘讴9648706069貨 鬲乇噩賲賴 丕夭 賲鬲賳 丌賱賲丕賳蹖貨
趩賴 讴爻蹖 丕夭 芦賵蹖乇噩蹖賳蹖丕 賵賵賱賮禄 賲蹖鈥屫必池� 毓賳賵丕賳 賳賲丕蹖卮鈥屬嗀з呝団€� 丕蹖 丕夭 芦丕丿賵丕乇丿 丌賱亘蹖禄貙 賳賲丕蹖卮賳丕賲賴鈥� 賳賵蹖爻 芦丌賲乇蹖讴丕蹖蹖禄 丕爻鬲貨 丕蹖賳 賳賲丕蹖卮鈥屬嗀з呝� 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 蹖讴 賲賴賲丕賳蹖 卮亘丕賳賴 乇丕 乇賵丕蹖鬲 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 讴賴 丿乇 丌賳 蹖讴 丕爻鬲丕丿 丿丕賳卮诏丕賴 賲蹖丕賳爻丕賱 亘賴 賳丕賲 芦噩乇噩禄貙 亘丕 賴賲爻乇卮 芦賲丕乇鬲丕禄貙 丿乇 丨囟賵乇 夭賳 賵 卮賵賴乇 噩賵丕賳蹖貙 丿賴賳 亘賴 丿賴賳 賲蹖鈥屫促堎嗀� 賵 丿乇 噩丿丕賱 賵 噩賳诏 亘蹖賳卮丕賳貙 丿乇賵睾鈥屬囏й屰� 讴賴 丌賳鈥屬囏� 亘賴 賴賲丿蹖诏乇 诏賮鬲賴鈥� 丕賳丿 丌卮讴丕乇 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�
鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘賴賳诏丕賲 乇爻丕賳蹖 10/09/1399賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 10/07/1400賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 丕. 卮乇亘蹖丕賳蹖
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? is a play by Edward Albee first staged in 1962.
It examines the breakdown of the marriage of a middle-aged couple, Martha and George.
Late one evening, after a university faculty party, they receive an unwitting younger couple, Nick and Honey, as guests, and draw them into their bitter and frustrated relationship.
The play is in three acts, normally taking a little less than three hours to perform, with two ten minute intermissions.
The title is a pun on the song "Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf?" from Walt Disney's Three Little Pigs (1933), substituting the name of the celebrated English author Virginia Woolf.
Martha and George repeatedly sing this version of the song throughout the play.
鬲丕乇蹖禺 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 禺賵丕賳卮: 爻丕賱 1977賲蹖賱丕丿蹖
毓賳賵丕賳: 趩賴 讴爻蹖 丕夭 賵蹖乇噩蹖賳蹖丕 賵賵賱賮 賲蹖鈥屫必池熦� 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 丕丿賵丕乇丿 丌賱亘蹖貨 賲鬲乇噩賲: 毓亘丿丕賱乇囟丕 丨乇蹖乇蹖貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 亘蹖 賳丕貙 1356貙 丿乇 19氐 賵 181氐貨 賲賵囟賵毓 賳賲丕蹖卮賳丕賲賴 賴丕蹖 賳賵蹖爻賳丿诏丕賳 丕蹖丕賱丕鬲 賲鬲丨丿賴 丌賲乇蹖讴丕 - 爻丿賴 20賲
毓賳賵丕賳: 趩賴 讴爻蹖 丕夭 賵蹖乇噩蹖賳蹖丕 賵賵賱賮 賲蹖鈥屫必池熦� 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 丕丿賵丕乇丿 丌賱亘蹖貨 賲鬲乇噩賲: 爻蹖丕賲讴 诏賱卮蹖乇蹖貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 賯氐蹖丿賴 爻乇丕貙 1384貙 丿乇 180氐貨 卮丕亘讴9648706069貨 鬲乇噩賲賴 丕夭 賲鬲賳 丌賱賲丕賳蹖貨
趩賴 讴爻蹖 丕夭 芦賵蹖乇噩蹖賳蹖丕 賵賵賱賮禄 賲蹖鈥屫必池� 毓賳賵丕賳 賳賲丕蹖卮鈥屬嗀з呝団€� 丕蹖 丕夭 芦丕丿賵丕乇丿 丌賱亘蹖禄貙 賳賲丕蹖卮賳丕賲賴鈥� 賳賵蹖爻 芦丌賲乇蹖讴丕蹖蹖禄 丕爻鬲貨 丕蹖賳 賳賲丕蹖卮鈥屬嗀з呝� 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 蹖讴 賲賴賲丕賳蹖 卮亘丕賳賴 乇丕 乇賵丕蹖鬲 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 讴賴 丿乇 丌賳 蹖讴 丕爻鬲丕丿 丿丕賳卮诏丕賴 賲蹖丕賳爻丕賱 亘賴 賳丕賲 芦噩乇噩禄貙 亘丕 賴賲爻乇卮 芦賲丕乇鬲丕禄貙 丿乇 丨囟賵乇 夭賳 賵 卮賵賴乇 噩賵丕賳蹖貙 丿賴賳 亘賴 丿賴賳 賲蹖鈥屫促堎嗀� 賵 丿乇 噩丿丕賱 賵 噩賳诏 亘蹖賳卮丕賳貙 丿乇賵睾鈥屬囏й屰� 讴賴 丌賳鈥屬囏� 亘賴 賴賲丿蹖诏乇 诏賮鬲賴鈥� 丕賳丿 丌卮讴丕乇 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�
鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘賴賳诏丕賲 乇爻丕賳蹖 10/09/1399賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 10/07/1400賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 丕. 卮乇亘蹖丕賳蹖
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鈥檛 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 鈥� 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 鈥� 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 鈥榤oments before the divorce鈥� play 鈥� 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 鈥� 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 鈥榬eality鈥�. 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 鈥� 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 鈥� 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 鈥� 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 鈥� if someone can love us for our scars, for ourselves 鈥� warts and all - I am almost invariably reduced to tears. At the end of 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鈥檓 too much of a boy to be caught crying in theatres 鈥� 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鈥檝e ever seen. I don鈥檛 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 鈥� 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 鈥� 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 鈥榤oments before the divorce鈥� play 鈥� 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 鈥� 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 鈥榬eality鈥�. 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 鈥� 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 鈥� 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 鈥� 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 鈥� if someone can love us for our scars, for ourselves 鈥� warts and all - I am almost invariably reduced to tears. At the end of 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鈥檓 too much of a boy to be caught crying in theatres 鈥� 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鈥檝e ever seen. I don鈥檛 think it is possible to love this play any more than I do.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 15, 2025
Procreation is the fundamental essence of human life. For this reason, all humans go through all the crossings of life, hoping that when they are no longer in the world, somebody will be there to carry on their legacy. But what happens to a couple who does not have a child? What should the couple hope when the very essence of their being is refusing to them? 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 Nick, opposite. Martha is aggressive, dominant, and of a bullying nature, while Nick is timid and passive. They are a middle-aged couple who do not have any children. Their prime target in this drama is their neighbors, whom they try to fool by creating make-believe situations 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 Nick, opposite. Martha is aggressive, dominant, and of a bullying nature, while Nick is timid and passive. They are a middle-aged couple who do not have any children. Their prime target in this drama is their neighbors, whom they try to fool by creating make-believe situations 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.
April 3, 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鈥�
He'd stand on the opening to his cage - spread his beautiful grey, white and yellow plumage wide - and stoop low to us. 鈥淜iss and make up!鈥�
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鈥�
He'd stand on the opening to his cage - spread his beautiful grey, white and yellow plumage wide - and stoop low to us. 鈥淜iss and make up!鈥�
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.
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 鈥済ames鈥� 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:
鈥�. . . 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.鈥�
So it all appears initially to be uselessly mean, cleverly drunken chatter, but there鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥檛 always fun, it can be brutally painful, but it can also be exhilarating theater. Here鈥檚 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: 鈥榊es, this will do鈥�. 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.
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 鈥済ames鈥� 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:
鈥�. . . 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.鈥�
So it all appears initially to be uselessly mean, cleverly drunken chatter, but there鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥檛 always fun, it can be brutally painful, but it can also be exhilarating theater. Here鈥檚 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: 鈥榊es, this will do鈥�. 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猸怾 驴饾檶饾櫔饾櫈饾櫄虂饾櫍 饾櫓饾櫄饾櫌饾櫄 饾櫀 饾檻饾櫈饾櫑饾櫆饾櫈饾櫍饾櫈饾櫀 饾檼饾櫎饾櫎饾櫋饾櫅? 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 a帽os de matrimonio. Despu茅s 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 m谩s 铆ntimos. Manipulan a Nick y Honey para utilizarlos en sus juegos psicol贸gicos, revelando la profundidad de sus propias inseguridades y desilusiones.
Esta obra hab铆a estado entre mis pendientes bastante tiempo y decid铆 hacer mi examen de Teatro Universal sobre ella (sin duda, un gran acierto de mi parte). En mi caso, me decid铆 centrar en Martha, as铆 que fue lo que m谩s retuve a la hora de leer esta obra.
Martha es sin duda el personaje principal en la historia y el m谩s 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 m谩s duras que sean. Adem谩s, 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 alcoh贸lica). Tambi茅n, es olvidadiza y dispersa, a menudo va dejando vasos medio vac铆os por toda la casa y su comportamiento es desorganizado y espont谩neo (no le avisa a su marido que ha invitado a una pareja a las dos de la ma帽ana 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. Tambi茅n, considero que es importante mencionar que es una personalidad competitiva y coqueta, as铆 que utiliza estas caracter铆sticas como mecanismos de defensa para ocultar su pesimismo y desilusi贸n con su vida y matrimonio.
La obra pertenece al teatro del absurdo y el realismo psicol贸gico. Adem谩s, la obra incorpora elementos del teatro de la crueldad, en donde se busca impactar profundamente al espectador mediante la intensificaci贸n de las emociones y la exploraci贸n 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 psicol贸gicos con Nick y Honey y las agresiones f铆sicas. Todo esto busca que el p煤blico experimente un shock y una confrontaci贸n con la realidad m谩s cruda y visceral.
La configuraci贸n dram谩tica de Martha est谩 MUY bien desarrollada. Sus acciones y di谩logos revelan una profunda insatisfacci贸n y lucha interna, siendo la causante de muchos de los conflictos y revelaciones en la obra. Su relaci贸n con George es central, caracterizada por una din谩mica de poder y conflicto constante. Sin duda, el dramaturgo logra crear un personaje veros铆mil, 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 驴饾檶饾櫔饾櫈饾櫄虂饾櫍 饾櫓饾櫄饾櫌饾櫄 饾櫀 饾檻饾櫈饾櫑饾櫆饾櫈饾櫍饾櫈饾櫀 饾檼饾櫎饾櫎饾櫋饾櫅? es una obra realmente fuerte, potente y con un gran significado. Martha, como personaje central, es una creaci贸n magistral de Albee, que deja una impresi贸n duradera por su complejidad y humanidad. La obra te lleva a un viaje psicol贸gico que desaf铆a al espectador a confrontar las verdades dolorosas de la vida y el amor.
Esta obra hab铆a estado entre mis pendientes bastante tiempo y decid铆 hacer mi examen de Teatro Universal sobre ella (sin duda, un gran acierto de mi parte). En mi caso, me decid铆 centrar en Martha, as铆 que fue lo que m谩s retuve a la hora de leer esta obra.
Martha es sin duda el personaje principal en la historia y el m谩s 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 m谩s duras que sean. Adem谩s, 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 alcoh贸lica). Tambi茅n, es olvidadiza y dispersa, a menudo va dejando vasos medio vac铆os por toda la casa y su comportamiento es desorganizado y espont谩neo (no le avisa a su marido que ha invitado a una pareja a las dos de la ma帽ana 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. Tambi茅n, considero que es importante mencionar que es una personalidad competitiva y coqueta, as铆 que utiliza estas caracter铆sticas como mecanismos de defensa para ocultar su pesimismo y desilusi贸n con su vida y matrimonio.
La obra pertenece al teatro del absurdo y el realismo psicol贸gico. Adem谩s, la obra incorpora elementos del teatro de la crueldad, en donde se busca impactar profundamente al espectador mediante la intensificaci贸n de las emociones y la exploraci贸n 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 psicol贸gicos con Nick y Honey y las agresiones f铆sicas. Todo esto busca que el p煤blico experimente un shock y una confrontaci贸n con la realidad m谩s cruda y visceral.
La configuraci贸n dram谩tica de Martha est谩 MUY bien desarrollada. Sus acciones y di谩logos revelan una profunda insatisfacci贸n y lucha interna, siendo la causante de muchos de los conflictos y revelaciones en la obra. Su relaci贸n con George es central, caracterizada por una din谩mica de poder y conflicto constante. Sin duda, el dramaturgo logra crear un personaje veros铆mil, 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 驴饾檶饾櫔饾櫈饾櫄虂饾櫍 饾櫓饾櫄饾櫌饾櫄 饾櫀 饾檻饾櫈饾櫑饾櫆饾櫈饾櫍饾櫈饾櫀 饾檼饾櫎饾櫎饾櫋饾櫅? es una obra realmente fuerte, potente y con un gran significado. Martha, como personaje central, es una creaci贸n magistral de Albee, que deja una impresi贸n duradera por su complejidad y humanidad. La obra te lleva a un viaje psicol贸gico que desaf铆a 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.
December 16, 2020
鈥淚 don鈥檛 have a sense of humor. I have a fine sense of the ridiculous but no sense of humor.鈥�
I found this premise blatantly implausible: why would you STAY when the other couple start maliciously attacking each other??? There鈥檚 no way that would happen, right? Well, unless, of course, you鈥檙e being held hostage... which these two weren鈥檛....
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鈥檚 no way that would happen, right? Well, unless, of course, you鈥檙e being held hostage... which these two weren鈥檛....
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. .
Bonus: look up the filmed version with Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor, sparks are literally flying around. .
November 25, 2022
**4.5 stars**
鈥淟ike the moon shining bright
Up high with all its grace,
I can only show you at night
And hide half of my face.鈥�
鈥� Ana Claudia Antunes, ()
鈥淟ike European Absurdists, Albee has tried to dramatize the reality of man鈥檚 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.鈥�
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 鈥�The Exorcism鈥� (the title later assigned to Act 3) but arrived at 鈥�Who鈥檚 Afraid of Virginia Woolf?鈥� 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 鈥� Who is afraid of facing life without illusions? 鈥�
Disappointed as I was, it was a pretty amazing read in itself. Asked to describe his work in progress that would become 鈥�Who鈥檚 Afraid of Virginia Woolf?鈥�, Edward Albee claimed his work to be a 鈥�sort of grotesque comedy鈥� concerning that deals with 鈥�the substitution of artificial for real values in this society of ours.鈥� That does sound quite a mouthful, but really is drastically appropriate.
鈥淒ashed hopes and good intentions. Good, better, best, bested.鈥�
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.
鈥淵ou want to dance with me, angel tits?鈥�
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.
鈥淵ou 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?鈥�
鈥淟ike the moon shining bright
Up high with all its grace,
I can only show you at night
And hide half of my face.鈥�
鈥� Ana Claudia Antunes, ()
鈥淟ike European Absurdists, Albee has tried to dramatize the reality of man鈥檚 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.鈥�
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 鈥�The Exorcism鈥� (the title later assigned to Act 3) but arrived at 鈥�Who鈥檚 Afraid of Virginia Woolf?鈥� 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 鈥� Who is afraid of facing life without illusions? 鈥�
Disappointed as I was, it was a pretty amazing read in itself. Asked to describe his work in progress that would become 鈥�Who鈥檚 Afraid of Virginia Woolf?鈥�, Edward Albee claimed his work to be a 鈥�sort of grotesque comedy鈥� concerning that deals with 鈥�the substitution of artificial for real values in this society of ours.鈥� That does sound quite a mouthful, but really is drastically appropriate.
鈥淒ashed hopes and good intentions. Good, better, best, bested.鈥�
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.
鈥淵ou want to dance with me, angel tits?鈥�
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.
鈥淵ou 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?鈥�
July 30, 2017
鈥淭here's no limit to you, is there?鈥�
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鈥檚 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鈥檝e seen it onstage you鈥檒l be easily able to supply the visual punctuation marks for the few moments that lose something in translation to audio-only format: George鈥檚 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鈥檚 writing itself provides all you really need for the play鈥檚 visceral intensity to hit home: highly literate, stippled with corrosive wit and bristling with combativeness, it doesn鈥檛 really require much in the way of staging to work its wounding magic. All that鈥檚 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鈥檚 Martha.There鈥檚 something particularly satisfying about hearing the performance. You can appreciate the mighty range of Hagen鈥檚 vocal resources 鈥� 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鈥檚 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鈥檝e seen it onstage you鈥檒l be easily able to supply the visual punctuation marks for the few moments that lose something in translation to audio-only format: George鈥檚 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鈥檚 writing itself provides all you really need for the play鈥檚 visceral intensity to hit home: highly literate, stippled with corrosive wit and bristling with combativeness, it doesn鈥檛 really require much in the way of staging to work its wounding magic. All that鈥檚 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鈥檚 Martha.There鈥檚 something particularly satisfying about hearing the performance. You can appreciate the mighty range of Hagen鈥檚 vocal resources 鈥� 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
禺賵丕賳卮 氐賵鬲蹖/賳賲蹖丿賵賳賲 丕蹖賳 趩賴 噩丕丿賵蹖蹖 亘賵丿 讴賴 丕賳賯丿乇 噩匕亘賲 讴乇丿. 丿乇 丨丕賱鬲 賲毓賲賵賱 丕夭 丕蹖賳噩賵乇 賳賲丕蹖卮賳丕賲賴鈥屬囏� 禺賵卮賲 賳賲蹖丕丿 丕賲丕 丕蹖賳 蹖賴 噩賵乇 毓噩蹖亘蹖 禺賵亘 亘賵丿.鈥屸€�.. 丕蹖賳讴賴 賴賲夭賲丕賳 鬲賵 蹖讴 卮亘 賮蹖賱賲卮 (1966) 乇賵 賴賲 亘丕 亘丕夭蹖 賮賵賯鈥屫з勜关ж団€屰� 丕賱蹖夭丕亘鬲 鬲蹖賱賵乇 丿蹖丿賲 賴賲 亘蹖 鬲丕孬蹖乇 賳亘賵丿. 丕賲丕 亘賳馗乇賲 丕诏乇 賮賯胤 賮蹖賱賲 蹖丕 賮賯胤 賳賲丕蹖賳卮賳丕賲賴 乇賵 賲蹖禺賵賳丿賲 亘乇丕賲 鄣 爻鬲丕乇賴 賳賲蹖卮丿.
讴賱 賳賲丕蹖卮賳丕賲賴 诏賮鬲诏賵 賲丨賵乇賴 賵 丕夭 丕賵賱 鬲丕 丌禺乇 夭賳 賵 卮賵賴乇蹖 丿丕乇賳 噩賱賵蹖 賲賴賲賵賳丕卮賵賳 賴賲丿蹖诏賴 乇賵 鬲丨賯蹖乇 賲蹖讴賳賳 賵 讴賱 夭賳丿诏蹖卮賵賳 鬲賵 丕蹖賳 诏賮鬲诏賵 夭蹖乇 賵 乇賵 賲蹖卮賴 賵 丿乇 賳賴丕蹖鬲 賲蹖亘蹖賳蹖賲 讴賴 讴賱丕 丿丕乇賳 鬲賵 鬲賵賴賲 夭賳丿诏蹖 賲蹖讴賳賳.
蹖讴 爻乇蹖 趩蹖夭賴丕 賴賲 亘乇丕賲 賲亘賴賲 賲賵賳丿 讴賴 丕賱丕賳 賲蹖乇賲 趩賳丿鬲丕 賲賯丕賱賴 丿乇賲賵乇丿卮 亘禺賵賳賲 鬲丕 亘蹖卮鬲乇 夭蹖乇 夭亘賵賳賲 亘趩卮賲卮.
賲賳 丕夭 氐丕賯趩賴 诏賵卮 丿丕丿賲 賵 禺蹖賱蹖 禺蹖賱蹖 丕噩乇丕蹖 禺賵亘 賵 丨乇賮賴鈥屫й� 亘賵丿 亘丕 賱丨賳鈥屬囏й� 亘蹖賳馗蹖乇 賵 丕賳乇跇蹖 丨乇賮賴鈥屫й�.
讴賱 賳賲丕蹖卮賳丕賲賴 诏賮鬲诏賵 賲丨賵乇賴 賵 丕夭 丕賵賱 鬲丕 丌禺乇 夭賳 賵 卮賵賴乇蹖 丿丕乇賳 噩賱賵蹖 賲賴賲賵賳丕卮賵賳 賴賲丿蹖诏賴 乇賵 鬲丨賯蹖乇 賲蹖讴賳賳 賵 讴賱 夭賳丿诏蹖卮賵賳 鬲賵 丕蹖賳 诏賮鬲诏賵 夭蹖乇 賵 乇賵 賲蹖卮賴 賵 丿乇 賳賴丕蹖鬲 賲蹖亘蹖賳蹖賲 讴賴 讴賱丕 丿丕乇賳 鬲賵 鬲賵賴賲 夭賳丿诏蹖 賲蹖讴賳賳.
蹖讴 爻乇蹖 趩蹖夭賴丕 賴賲 亘乇丕賲 賲亘賴賲 賲賵賳丿 讴賴 丕賱丕賳 賲蹖乇賲 趩賳丿鬲丕 賲賯丕賱賴 丿乇賲賵乇丿卮 亘禺賵賳賲 鬲丕 亘蹖卮鬲乇 夭蹖乇 夭亘賵賳賲 亘趩卮賲卮.
賲賳 丕夭 氐丕賯趩賴 诏賵卮 丿丕丿賲 賵 禺蹖賱蹖 禺蹖賱蹖 丕噩乇丕蹖 禺賵亘 賵 丨乇賮賴鈥屫й� 亘賵丿 亘丕 賱丨賳鈥屬囏й� 亘蹖賳馗蹖乇 賵 丕賳乇跇蹖 丨乇賮賴鈥屫й�.
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 欧宝娱乐 giveaway. Review to come!
May 25, 2022
賳賲丕蹖卮賳丕賲賴 禺蹖賱蹖 禺蹖賱蹖 毓噩蹖亘蹖 亘賵丿貙 乇賵乇丕爻鬲 丕诏乇 亘丕 爻毓蹖丿 賴賲禺賵丕賳蹖 賳讴乇丿賴 亘賵丿賲 賵 賳馗乇丕鬲 丕賵賳賵 賳賲蹖卮賳蹖丿賲 亘乇丿丕卮鬲賲 丕夭卮 禺蹖賱蹖 賳丕賯氐 亘丕賯蹖 賲蹖 賲賵賳丿. 爻毓蹖丿 賳馗乇蹖賴 亘丕夭蹖 賴丕 乇賵 賲胤乇丨 讴乇丿 賵 賲賳 丕夭 亘毓丿 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 爻毓蹖 讴乇丿賲 丿蹖丿诏丕賴賲 乇賵 鬲賵囟蹖丨 亘丿賲. 丕夭 趩蹖夭蹖 讴賴 鬲氐賵乇卮 乇賵 丿丕卮鬲賲 毓噩蹖亘 鬲乇 倬乇 丨乇賮 鬲乇 亘賵丿 丕蹖賳 讴丕乇. 亘丕 丕蹖賳 賵噩賵丿 賲賳 丿賵爻鬲卮 賳丿丕卮鬲賲 賵 亘丕賴丕卮 丕乇鬲亘丕胤 亘乇賯乇丕乇 賳讴乇丿賲. 賯胤毓丕 讴丕乇 禺蹖賱蹖 禺蹖賱蹖 禺丕氐蹖賴 丕賲丕 亘賲賳 賮乇氐鬲 賳賮爻 讴卮蹖丿賳 賵 賮讴乇 讴乇丿賳 賳賲蹖鈥屫ж�. 鬲賲丕賲 鬲丨賱蹖賱 賴丕 賴賲 亘丕 賮丕氐賱賴 诏乇賮鬲賳 丕夭卮 亘賴 匕賴賳賲 乇爻蹖丿.
讴丕乇蹖 賳蹖爻鬲 讴賴 丿賵亘丕乇賴 亘禺賵賳賲 蹖丕 倬蹖卮賳賴丕丿 讴賳賲. 丕賲丕 丕诏乇 禺賵丕爻鬲蹖丿 亘禺賵賳蹖丿卮 丨鬲賲丕 鬲噩乇亘賴 禺丕氐蹖 禺賵丕賴蹖丿 丿丕卮鬲.
讴丕乇蹖 賳蹖爻鬲 讴賴 丿賵亘丕乇賴 亘禺賵賳賲 蹖丕 倬蹖卮賳賴丕丿 讴賳賲. 丕賲丕 丕诏乇 禺賵丕爻鬲蹖丿 亘禺賵賳蹖丿卮 丨鬲賲丕 鬲噩乇亘賴 禺丕氐蹖 禺賵丕賴蹖丿 丿丕卮鬲.
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 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
賳賲丕蹖卮賳丕賲賴鈥屫й� 亘賵丿 丕夭 鬲馗丕賴乇 夭賳 賵 卮賵賴乇蹖 亘賴 丿丕卮鬲賳 夭賳丿诏蹖 亘蹖鈥屬嗁傌� 讴賴 丕賱亘鬲賴 禺丕賱蹖 丕夭 鬲賲爻禺乇 賵 爻乇讴賵亘 蹖讴丿蹖诏乇 賴賲 賳亘賵丿. 亘乇丕蹖 賲賳 丕氐賱丕 噩丕賱亘 賳亘賵丿 亘賴 賳馗乇賲 禺蹖賱蹖 丌夭丕乇丿賴賳丿賴 亘賵丿 賵 賲賳 亘賴 禺丕胤乇 丕賲鬲蹖丕夭 诏賵丿乇蹖丿夭 禺賵賳丿賲.
July 20, 2024
Clearly a classic. Not very uplifting. But raw stuff .
February 27, 2018
亘丕 賵噩賵丿 丕蹖賳鈥屭┵� 賲丕 賲賵噩賵丿丕鬲蹖 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 賴爻鬲蹖賲 丕賲丕 丿乇 卮乇丕蹖胤 禺丕氐蹖 賲賲讴賳 丕爻鬲 讴丕賲賱丕賸 睾蹖乇丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 亘卮賵蹖賲. 丕禺賱丕賯 乇丕 讴賳丕乇 亘诏匕丕乇蹖賲 賵 賲孬賱 丕噩丿丕丿 亘丿賵蹖鈥屬呚з� 乇賮鬲丕乇賴丕蹖蹖 賳卮丕賳 亘丿賴蹖賲 讴賴 賮賯胤 丕夭 蹖讴 賳卅丕賳丿乇鬲丕賱 亘乇賲蹖鈥屫③屫�. 亘賴 禺賵丿鬲丕賳 賳诏蹖乇蹖丿 賱胤賮丕賸. 丕賲丕 賲蹖鈥屫з嗁� 讴賴 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 亘賵丿賳貙 賲鬲卮禺氐 亘賵丿賳 賵 乇賮鬲丕乇賴丕蹖 賴賲乇丕賴 亘丕 卮毓賵乇 賲賲讴賳 丕爻鬲 鬲丕 噩丕蹖蹖 賴賲乇丕賴鈥屬呚з� 亘丕卮丿 賵 亘毓丿 丿乇 賵囟毓蹖鬲蹖 賵蹖跇賴 鬲睾蹖蹖乇 讴賳蹖賲. 丌丿賲鈥屬囏й� 丕蹖賳 賳賲丕蹖卮賳丕賲賴 丕賱亘鬲賴 賮賯胤 鬲丕 噩丕蹖蹖 賵 鬲賳賴丕 趩賳丿 賯丿賲蹖 丕夭 丌賳 趩賴乇賴鈥屬囏й� 禺賳丿丕賳 亘丕 賳賵乇 賲賱丕蹖賲蹖 丕夭 卮毓賵乇 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 丿賵乇 卮丿賳丿. 賲賲讴賳 丕爻鬲 賲丕 賴賲 蹖讴 乇賵夭 丿乇 丨囟賵乇 賲賴賲丕賳丕賳鈥屬呚з� 趩賳蹖賳 讴丕乇賴丕蹖蹖 丕賳噩丕賲 亘丿賴蹖賲.
丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 亘蹖卮鈥屫� 丕夭 丿丕爻鬲丕賳貙 讴丕乇丕讴鬲乇賴丕 賲噩匕賵亘鈥屫з� 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀�. 丕蹖賳 丌丿賲鈥屬囏� 乇丕 丕丨鬲賲丕賱丕賸 賳賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 亘賴 乇丕丨鬲蹖 賴乇 噩丕蹖蹖 倬蹖丿丕 讴乇丿. 亘賴 爻禺鬲蹖 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 诏賮鬲 讴賴 芦賲賳賲 賴賲蹖賳胤賵乇賲!禄貙 芦趩賯丿乇 卮亘蹖賴 賲賳 亘賵丿禄. 賳賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 亘丕 丌賳鈥屬囏� 賴賲匕丕鬲鈥屬举嗀ж臂� 讴乇丿. 卮讴爻鬲賳 賲乇夭賴丕 卮丕蹖丿 亘乇噩爻鬲賴鈥屫臂屬� 賵蹖跇诏蹖 丕蹖賳 賳賲丕蹖卮賳丕賲賴 亘乇丕蹖 賲賳 亘丕卮丿. 賮囟丕蹖蹖 讴賴 丿乇 丌賳貙 丌丿賲鈥屬囏� 丕夭 賯丕賱亘鈥屬囏й屫簇з� 亘蹖乇賵賳 賲蹖鈥屫③屬嗀� 賵 趩蹖夭蹖 賲蹖鈥屫促堎嗀� 讴賴 丿乇 丿乇賵賳蹖鈥屫臂屬� 倬賵爻鬲賴鈥屫簇з� 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇丿. 乇丕爻鬲卮 賴賲蹖賳 乇賮鬲丕乇賴丕貙 亘丿丿賴賳蹖鈥屬囏� 賵 賮丨卮鈥屬囏� 賵 賵丕讴賳卮鈥� 卮禺氐蹖鬲鈥屬囏� 亘賵丿 讴賴 賲賳 乇丕 鬲丕 丌禺乇 賳賲丕蹖卮賳丕賲賴 亘丕 禺賵丿 讴卮丕賳丿 賵 亘乇丿.
丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 亘蹖卮鈥屫� 丕夭 丿丕爻鬲丕賳貙 讴丕乇丕讴鬲乇賴丕 賲噩匕賵亘鈥屫з� 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀�. 丕蹖賳 丌丿賲鈥屬囏� 乇丕 丕丨鬲賲丕賱丕賸 賳賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 亘賴 乇丕丨鬲蹖 賴乇 噩丕蹖蹖 倬蹖丿丕 讴乇丿. 亘賴 爻禺鬲蹖 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 诏賮鬲 讴賴 芦賲賳賲 賴賲蹖賳胤賵乇賲!禄貙 芦趩賯丿乇 卮亘蹖賴 賲賳 亘賵丿禄. 賳賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 亘丕 丌賳鈥屬囏� 賴賲匕丕鬲鈥屬举嗀ж臂� 讴乇丿. 卮讴爻鬲賳 賲乇夭賴丕 卮丕蹖丿 亘乇噩爻鬲賴鈥屫臂屬� 賵蹖跇诏蹖 丕蹖賳 賳賲丕蹖卮賳丕賲賴 亘乇丕蹖 賲賳 亘丕卮丿. 賮囟丕蹖蹖 讴賴 丿乇 丌賳貙 丌丿賲鈥屬囏� 丕夭 賯丕賱亘鈥屬囏й屫簇з� 亘蹖乇賵賳 賲蹖鈥屫③屬嗀� 賵 趩蹖夭蹖 賲蹖鈥屫促堎嗀� 讴賴 丿乇 丿乇賵賳蹖鈥屫臂屬� 倬賵爻鬲賴鈥屫簇з� 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇丿. 乇丕爻鬲卮 賴賲蹖賳 乇賮鬲丕乇賴丕貙 亘丿丿賴賳蹖鈥屬囏� 賵 賮丨卮鈥屬囏� 賵 賵丕讴賳卮鈥� 卮禺氐蹖鬲鈥屬囏� 亘賵丿 讴賴 賲賳 乇丕 鬲丕 丌禺乇 賳賲丕蹖卮賳丕賲賴 亘丕 禺賵丿 讴卮丕賳丿 賵 亘乇丿.
March 27, 2021
Znate kako ide, u rolerkosteru mira nema. Ispo膷etka, mislite da je jurnjava stvar zabave, ali samo ste delom svesni predstoje膰ih krivina u vijugavim tunelima. Uzdizanje i strmoglavi opijaju, raduju, iritiraju i stra拧e, a adrenalin kipti. Okolo se ljudi raspadaju 鈥� lica na ivici su poput semafora, treskaju se u egzaltaciji, a poneko i povrati usput.
I to je ovaj tekst: silovita, ubojita vo啪nja, dramatur拧ki cunami 拧to kosi sve pred sobom i u sebi. A 膷ini se da postava je prosta: 膷arke dva para; jedan drugom u poseti. Kad ono, kijamet emocija i privla膷no-odbojnih stanja, koja, na gomili, ska膷u na ramena apsurdu. Ne, nije ovo drama o 啪ivotu profesor膷i膰a, tajnama i ljubavnim trouglovima, ve膰 o ljudima koji, iako gestom mazni ili dr膷ni, ostaju beznade啪no krhki i nesre膰ni. I ko razume dubinu te pri膷e, da se ovde, iza fasade crnohumorne dramice, preska膷e preko jama izgubljenosti, zveknu膰e ga tako oboga膰uju膰a katarza da 膰e mo啪da ipak pomisliti da je pozori拧te hram. Naravno, uspeh nije zagarantovan.
Ali, sre膰om, ovekove膷eno je jedno izvo膽enje bez premca: Majkl Nikols re啪ira, glume Elizabet Tejlor, Ri膷ard Barton, D啪ord啪 Segal i Sendi Denis. Sve moram spomenuti ne samo zato 拧to je ovo cela ekipa i zato 拧to su svi nominovani za Oskara (od toga dva dobijena), ve膰 i zato 拧to se ovo izvo膽enje prema拧iti ne mo啪e. Samo se mo啪e organizovati druk膷ija vo啪nja.
I da, koga zanima, neka obrati pa啪nju na igru-u-igri-u-igri. Osim 拧to su kao eksplozivne bilijarske kugle, junaci iznova prave svakodnevne a groteskne 拧umove, koji ni ne treba da se de拧ifruju, ve膰 da se do啪ive dinami膷no, u promeni. A pitanje upori拧ta njihovih odnosa sasvim je otvoreno u odnosu na re啪iju i to je izraz majstorstva: da vam je tekst obuzdan, fiksiran, a toliko otvoren da mo啪ete, ostaju膰i verni njemu, ista膰i sopstvenu verziju.
I to je ovaj tekst: silovita, ubojita vo啪nja, dramatur拧ki cunami 拧to kosi sve pred sobom i u sebi. A 膷ini se da postava je prosta: 膷arke dva para; jedan drugom u poseti. Kad ono, kijamet emocija i privla膷no-odbojnih stanja, koja, na gomili, ska膷u na ramena apsurdu. Ne, nije ovo drama o 啪ivotu profesor膷i膰a, tajnama i ljubavnim trouglovima, ve膰 o ljudima koji, iako gestom mazni ili dr膷ni, ostaju beznade啪no krhki i nesre膰ni. I ko razume dubinu te pri膷e, da se ovde, iza fasade crnohumorne dramice, preska膷e preko jama izgubljenosti, zveknu膰e ga tako oboga膰uju膰a katarza da 膰e mo啪da ipak pomisliti da je pozori拧te hram. Naravno, uspeh nije zagarantovan.
Ali, sre膰om, ovekove膷eno je jedno izvo膽enje bez premca: Majkl Nikols re啪ira, glume Elizabet Tejlor, Ri膷ard Barton, D啪ord啪 Segal i Sendi Denis. Sve moram spomenuti ne samo zato 拧to je ovo cela ekipa i zato 拧to su svi nominovani za Oskara (od toga dva dobijena), ve膰 i zato 拧to se ovo izvo膽enje prema拧iti ne mo啪e. Samo se mo啪e organizovati druk膷ija vo啪nja.
I da, koga zanima, neka obrati pa啪nju na igru-u-igri-u-igri. Osim 拧to su kao eksplozivne bilijarske kugle, junaci iznova prave svakodnevne a groteskne 拧umove, koji ni ne treba da se de拧ifruju, ve膰 da se do啪ive dinami膷no, u promeni. A pitanje upori拧ta njihovih odnosa sasvim je otvoreno u odnosu na re啪iju i to je izraz majstorstva: da vam je tekst obuzdan, fiksiran, a toliko otvoren da mo啪ete, ostaju膰i verni njemu, ista膰i sopstvenu verziju.
February 18, 2024
I thought the dinner party episode of The Office was the most tense 鈥渃ouples party鈥� ever鈥� 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.鈥�
"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.鈥�
June 11, 2016
趩賴 讴爻蹖 丕夭 賵蹖乇噩蹖賳蹖丕 賵賵賱賮 賲蹖鈥屫必池�
丨噩賲 丿蹖丕賱賵诏鈥屬囏� 亘丕賱丕鬲乇 丕夭 讴卮卮 賲鬲賳 亘賵丿. 蹖毓賳蹖貙 亘丕 丕蹖賳讴賴 賴賲賴鈥屰� 丿蹖丕賱賵诏鈥屬囏� 丿乇 禺丿賲鬲 賲鬲賳賴貙 丕賲丕 賴賲賴鈥屰� 賲鬲賳 丿蹖丕賱賵诏賴貙 賳丕诏賮鬲賴鈥屬囏� 丿丕卅賲 鬲賵蹖 丿蹖丕賱賵诏鈥屬囏� 诏賮鬲賴 賲蹖鈥屫促嗀� 賴蹖趩 賳賮爻鈥屭┴篡� 亘乇丕蹖 賲禺丕胤亘 賳蹖爻鬲貙 賵 丕蹖賳 賳賮爻鈥� 賳讴卮蹖丿賳 丿乇 禺丿賲鬲 賮乇賲 賳蹖爻鬲. 亘賴 禺丕胤乇 賴賲蹖賳 賳賯氐貙 卮丕賴讴丕乇 丕亘丿蹖 賳賲蹖鈥屫促� 丿賵賳爻鬲卮. 丕賲丕 丨鬲賲丕 亘丕蹖丿 禺賵賳丿卮.
丨噩賲 丿蹖丕賱賵诏鈥屬囏� 亘丕賱丕鬲乇 丕夭 讴卮卮 賲鬲賳 亘賵丿. 蹖毓賳蹖貙 亘丕 丕蹖賳讴賴 賴賲賴鈥屰� 丿蹖丕賱賵诏鈥屬囏� 丿乇 禺丿賲鬲 賲鬲賳賴貙 丕賲丕 賴賲賴鈥屰� 賲鬲賳 丿蹖丕賱賵诏賴貙 賳丕诏賮鬲賴鈥屬囏� 丿丕卅賲 鬲賵蹖 丿蹖丕賱賵诏鈥屬囏� 诏賮鬲賴 賲蹖鈥屫促嗀� 賴蹖趩 賳賮爻鈥屭┴篡� 亘乇丕蹖 賲禺丕胤亘 賳蹖爻鬲貙 賵 丕蹖賳 賳賮爻鈥� 賳讴卮蹖丿賳 丿乇 禺丿賲鬲 賮乇賲 賳蹖爻鬲. 亘賴 禺丕胤乇 賴賲蹖賳 賳賯氐貙 卮丕賴讴丕乇 丕亘丿蹖 賳賲蹖鈥屫促� 丿賵賳爻鬲卮. 丕賲丕 丨鬲賲丕 亘丕蹖丿 禺賵賳丿卮.
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.
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.
January 3, 2024
One of the most comedic and terrifying plays of all time- the marital discord of George and Martha will forever linger on to the reader who's experienced their sadistic games on poor, unsuspecting Nick and Honey.
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.
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鈥檚 characterization hovers between a masochist and a sadist who enjoys to punish- nonetheless, I can totally see how this play shocked it鈥檚 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鈥檚 dark tale.
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; and the brutal performance that Taylor's real life spouse, Richard Burton inflicts as George will crawl under your skin as the film ends.
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.
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鈥檚 characterization hovers between a masochist and a sadist who enjoys to punish- nonetheless, I can totally see how this play shocked it鈥檚 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鈥檚 dark tale.
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; and the brutal performance that Taylor's real life spouse, Richard Burton inflicts as George will crawl under your skin as the film ends.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,762 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.