MovieChat Forums > Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966) Discussion > (SPOILER) Why did they invent him?

(SPOILER) Why did they invent him?

posted 11 years ago by LuvvieHowell
18 replies | jump to latest

For what purpose did George and Martha invent an imaginary son? Since it was supposed to be his 16th birthday, had they started the delusion 16 years ago?

For what reason...to save the marriage? I find that hard to swallow...they fight about their son. The color of his eyes, the birth itself, their different parenting styles. The son only served to bring out more hatred, frustration and anger between George and Martha, and so again, I have to ask: WHAT WAS THE REASON FOR HIM?

I have a friend who owns the DVD and he maintains that Martha HAD a son, but for some reason she had an illegal abortion (maybe because it wasn't George's...Martha brings that very subject up in front of Nick and Honey.) Then she finds out she can't conceive with George and the guilt from destroying what will be her only pregnancy drives her mad with guilt and self-hatred.

George somehow finds out about it, and tortures her emotionally over it. The imaginary son is a way to hurt Martha---to continually remind her of her infidelity.

Just a thought...

[–] Edward_de_Vere 11 years ago

I always had the impression that Martha had an emotional need to have an imaginary son, and George simply indulged her insanity there as he did almost everything else. It's quite possible that Martha was sterile and couldn't have children, or else married late and missed the boat so to speak. So Martha decided to escape her empty marriage and social life into a world of make-believe where she was a mother, and George put up with the fantasy for 16 years because her escapism made his life easier too.

[–] SamoanJoes 11 years ago

George simply indulged her insanity there as he did almost everything else.

I started thinking this at the end of the movie. George took the supposed death of his son rather lightly especially compared to Martha who was hysterical.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Edward_de_Vere 11 years ago

Stop praising this garbage.

Indeed. We should all be praising "masterpieces" like Those Lovely Bones and the sort of adolescent pap that you like.

Whenever I see a troll posting a generic "it sucks" on a classic film messageboard, they are inevitably either teenage boys who think that Michael Bay Transformers films are masterpieces, or teenage girls whose idea of great depth in film is the Twilight series. Never seems to fail.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] LuvvieHowell 10 years ago

Excuse me "gotoads" but get off this thread, please. It is about a specific quesiton regarding the film, and you waltz in insulting everyone. If you want to know why people like the film, there are plenty of reviews on here.

It won many Acadamy Awards and is about complex human behavior. I don't expect you to understand that. Now...shoo!

[–] Edward_de_Vere 10 years ago

That troll is another fool for my ignore list. My favorite was her(?) line "Stop praising this movie!," as though we somehow needed his/her/its permission or approval to like or dislike any film. Ignorance and arrogance usually go hand in hand.

The bottom line is that in Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? we get two of the finest performances to ever grace the screen, and one of the most darkly funny portrayals of emotional dysfunction ever staged and filmed.

As to your question, there are plenty of people who try to escape what they perceive to be an unfulfilled and meaningless life by escaping into a world of make-believe, to the point where they almost start believing their own fantasies. An imaginary child provided Martha with the emotional crutch that she needs while having none of the responsibilities and inconveniences of having to deal with another human being.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] LuvvieHowell 10 years ago

That's a very interesting theory...I like your post.

In the beginning of the movie, George says to Martha (before the guests arrive) "Are you going to do 'the bit'?" or words to that effect. Was 'the bit' the story of their son?

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] denis-38 10 years ago

Yes, he says, "Just don't do the 'bit' about the kid."

"The BIT--what is that? You think you're talking to one of your students?"

It's totally open to interpretation and as satisfying--or not--either way. I think the child was a fantasy. George himself says "You've moved bag and baggage into your own fantasy world." (The fight in the parking lot.)

[–] larryromano 10 years ago

I saw this movie for the first time a few weeks ago on TCM and then spent the next couple of days thinking about it. Not intentionally, I just found the whole thing fascinating and it is incredibly difficult to figure out. Not that I think I've figured it out because I don't think anyone really knows what is true to these characters and what isn't except for the author...and I think he's dead.

But one thing I think might be overlooked a lot is that George and Martha are performing. They aren't being honest at all and are each trying to cause pain. Not so much on each other ( I think they are essentially immune to each other), but to Nick and Honey.

They are kind of stuck in a strange reality. I think George married Martha because he thought it would be good for his career. I don't remember exactly what the job was, but both George and Martha had aspirations for George to have that job. And he was probably in line to get the job, but something happened between the two of them and Martha's father. A secret came out about George. The secret that he killed his parents. Martha probably told her father about it after they had been married and the man decided then and there that George would not move up anymore.

So when this new kid comes along he is seen as a threat to George and Martha's long-dead dreams and they want to destroy him. Martha attacks George. Nick pities George. Nick confides in George. George exploits it. So I think the "bit about the kid" is something they use to try and get to Nick through Honey. Martha brings the kid up to Martha off camera, in God knows what context.

But it seems entirely possible that through the course of conversation, possibly even at the mixer, Martha had perceived something sensitive about Honey either wanting children and not being able to have them, or having a "hyserical pregnancy", or something relating to a kid. So, it's possible that when George says "the bit about the kid" he is talking about Honey and Nick's kid, and not his and Martha's at all. Then Martha starts talking about HEr kid, in an attempt to dig up dirt on Nick and Honey. And then teh lie just kind of takes off between her and George.

[–] mackjay2 10 years ago

Very interesting comments, larryromano. I've known the film and play for many years and have heard many interpretations of its meaning. I'm convinced that George and Martha never really had a child, but wanted one. So they concocted a secret child that only they would ever discuss. They pledged never to tell anyone about "the kid". When Nick and Honey enter the picture, they reflect the older couple in certain ways. They are younger of course, but they too have 'secrets' which Nick and George exchange under the tree in the "bergin" scene. The presence of Nick and Honey really serves to stimulate George and Martha into acting out their resentments toward each other. They use the younger couple as a sounding board, but they really are out to 'get' each other. As sensitive as George's secret is (he killed his father accidentally), Martha's need to believe their child is real is much stronger. She breaks the agreement with George by mentioning and discussing "the kid" and this gives George permission to retaliate by "killing" their son in an invented telegram which he "ate". Devastated, Martha can only seek comfort from George, in the cold morning light of reality.

[–] LetThemEatCake01 9 years ago

I guess that's what truly happens but why react so violently?? She's some actress, or crazy. Part of me believes the tears are real, that they indeed had a son that died very young, and they just pretended he didn't and kept on living. But like you said, they kept that to themselves, but George decided to kill him all over again.

[–] bkzsmith 9 years ago

Martha and George married basically for love. (Why not, she was beautiful; he was a witty scholar.) She tells Nick in the kitchen that only one man has ever made her happy, and you're expecting her to say her father, but no, it's George. Then she delves into self-loathing: she's not happy, she doesn't want to be happy, she doesn't know. At the start of the film you can see how thoroughly tired George is of the games. He knows Martha has flirted with Nick and has invited the couple over just to provoke him. In a moment of tenderness early in their marriage, after they find they're infertile, they reminisce about a son they might have had: the color of his eyes, hair (notice George's story to Nick in the garden recalls the humiliated blond boy, i.e., himself). Soon their disappointments creep in: he with his stalled career, she craves his attention and becomes adulterous. At some point they pervert their honest revelations: his tragic youth, her desire for a child, and hurt each other. She hints that he murdered his parents, he says she would have molested a son. The games evolve to a cruel frenzy when smug Nick disrespects George and unwittingly pushes the couple too far. Honey's resentment towards Nick boils over into rage as well. The story is brilliant!

[–] JPLogan54 9 years ago

There is a bit of dialogue between George and Honey at the end of the film right before he comes up with his idea to tell Martha the kid is dead.
Honey seems to reveal that she actually had an abortion rather then a hysterical pregnancy, or maybe George infers it. In fact he infers she has had several. "How did you conduct these secret murders? Pills?"
It may also explain why Honey "gets sick so easily". Nicks father in law was a preacher so maybe Honey thinks birth control is a no no, she really actually doesn't want a kid, so whenever she get's pregnant she takes pills that cause a miscarriage or something...
I don't know I am just spit balling here.....

I think the kid was real and Nick and Honey are inventions. That piece of dialogue may indicate that it was Martha who forced her own miscarriages. Perhaps after they lost their son in order to preserve the false narrative they had agreed to in order to not face the awful reality.

[–] katiewon 9 years ago

I think the son become something they could use to justify all the vitriol between each other.
It held them together, and also tore them apart. I'm just happy he wasn't real, that kid would truly need therapy...