MovieChat Forums > Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966) Discussion > An allegory of theatre?

An allegory of theatre?

posted 9 years ago by vasilis_g84
2 replies | jump to latest

Do you think this movie could also be an allegory of theatre (or film-making or any other form of dramatic art)?

I understand that Martha's and George's characters are obviously, deliberately and intentionally created to perform their fights in front of their little audiences in order to show us how delusional and showers are they, but I also think there is something more.

Nick and Honey are so conveniently (just as George mentions too) brought to the whole story with their main characteristics resembling those of the leading couple's, that remind me of a couple watching a movie and projecting their thoughts and problems on the heroes they're watching.

Furthermore, every time they provide an information about them, this information is used to move forward the ''in-movie plot'', a plot that keeps changing and twisting, manipulating their emotions making them uncertain of what's true and what's not, like a good thriller. Even George and Martha behave like histrionic screenwriters saying things like ''you are not supposed to know (if we are lying or not)'' in many occasions.

Finally, after the revelation of the last scene, where Martha behaves as an improvising actor and George as an unseen (due to the composition of the frame) director giving directions and changing the plot-points, Honey is reaching the catharsis interpreting the story as if she should have a baby and Nick solves the mystery and exposes the facts.

There are many more references and details (like the book's plot, that itself keeps appearing also as fictional and as reality, merging the realities and confusing the young couple), the fact that there are no ending credits (as if the real movie is over long before the actual movie is over), the absurd plotline of the imaginary son that emphasizes the surreal and symbolic nature of storytelling and the overdramatic and excessive way things are adapted for the screen, etc.

So?

[–] InherentlyYours 9 years ago

My head is spinning somewhat with your theory, but I think we're supposed to take it at face value, However, I will say that this type of project probably works better as a play, than film.

So many plays are like puzzles, as if the audience would be bored with a straightforward play (like Neil Simon,etc.) I wonder if even the sophisticated Broadway audience got it, like many of the posters on this board are confused. When people all applaud after one those eclectic plays, I wonder if they are applauding because its the thing to do, even though they don't know what the hell they just saw.

[–] vasilis_g84 9 years ago

You are probably right, but I think I'll stick to this idea. It suggests that just as an actor's performance means nothing without an audience, so is George's and Martha'a relationship boring and uninteresting without someone to showoff on. Perhaps Edward Albee used this as a convention to develop one more layer in the story structure, who knows? It enhances the idea of emptiness in those two peoples' lifes. Just like a mirror image of Javie Bardem's and Penelope Cruz's relationship in ''Vicky Christina Barcelona''!

Now about the play in general... I didn't find anything extremely confusing in the plot of the story (I definitely wasn't wondering if the son was imaginary or not!), so, as long as the sophisticated Broadway audienceces wouldn't bother analyze it a lot, they should be perfectly happy with the portrayal of a dysfactional marriage and the actors' demanding performances, applauding smugly!