MovieChat Forums > Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966) Discussion > Still Confused By Ending (possible spoil...

Still Confused By Ending (possible spoiler)


I saw this film once one I was young and did not understand it. I recently watched it again as an adult and was still confused.

Why does Elizabeth Taylor get so sad when Richard Burton tells her that their fictitious son is dead? If he doesn't really exist, why is she so sad.

And why does George Segal say, "I think I understand." What is it that he understands and how does he figure this out?

Please explain this to me. I really like the film but feel a little dumb that I can enjoy the film without really understanding the finale...

reply

The fictional child has been the only thing keeping their marriage together, so when George takes it away, they are left with nothing.

Nick/Segal realizes that this is what has been going on, and obviously finds it rather devastating and/or perverse.

Personally, I have always found the ending so melodramatic that it is not surprising that a first or second time viewer would be confused.



There, daddy, do I get a gold star?

reply

She's extremely unhappy about the fact they could never have their own kids.

reply

Yeah too bad George wasn´t in the biology department.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply






Nah, he's pre-occupied with History.



------

Wait a minute... who am I here?

reply

LOL

"KILLING ME WON'T BRING BACK YOUR GOD DAMN HONEY!"
-The Wicker Man

reply

"NOOO!! HE'S IN THE MATH DEPARTMENT!!!"

reply

great point, i suppose he wanted this very much, though! What an ideal couple for guests !

reply

Why does Elizabeth Taylor get so sad when Richard Burton tells her that their fictitious son is dead? If he doesn't really exist, why is she so sad.


Pretending that they had a son was one of the illusions and lies that George and Martha relied on as an emotional crutch to make their otherwise empty life together meaningful. By "killing" the son, George took away that crutch.

And why does George Segal say, "I think I understand." What is it that he understands and how does he figure this out?


He understands that the son was fictitious, as were many of the other odd stories George and Martha told. He also understood that for most of their years together, they were necessary fiction for George and Martha.

reply

did the son have a name? think so. but I forget.

-------------------------
wut I'ma do?

reply

Why didn't they just get a pet or two ? (kidding)
Mercifully they didn't have kids...

reply

If the son had a name, George and Martha never mention it in during the film. In fact, there are not many facts provided about the "son," except that he will turn sixteen, and that he has green eyes (says Martha) or blue eyes (says George).

It is also interesting that Nick's name is never mentioned throughout the film.

reply

I am fairly certain that George called the son Jim at one point.

reply

Oh yes, you are right, George refers to him as "Sonny Jim." But George and Martha could quite whimsically change the story about their son and the way they had been raising him.

reply

the phrase "sonny jim" is not an actual reference to his name being jim, it's just a generic term used in the UK, like "Jack the Lad" etc.

reply

No the sonny Jim is/was a euphemism .I've heard my father use the term .

reply

Others have explained it very well, but I'll add that what Nick (and by some extension, Honey) was seeing what their future would be if they continued to conduct their marriage based on lies: his marrying Honey for money and the preggers thing, and her lying about her actual real pregnancies and not wanting children. In a way, Richard was sacrificing his "child" so that the young couple might be able to have one.

Both Nick and Honey have lied in their fairly new relationship; Martha and Richard's is completely held up by lies at that point. In his bitter, jaded, but also altruistic way, Richard was attempting to save them. And maybe himself and Martha, too.

So again, when Nick says he's beginning to understand, he really means he sees himself and Honey as Richard and Martha; Honey is heading straight to Martha's booze-town, and Nick is already showing signs of being a pompous ass ready to bang the Headmaster's daughter for advancement. As long as Honey and Nick avoid talking about their marriage and future with or without children, they will end up living a life based on lies upon lies, and will ultimately self-destruct.

reply

That was a great post and explanation, Parsley, thank you.

Limit of the Willing Suspension of Disbelief: directly proportional to its awesomeness.

reply

I don't see anything in Richard's character to suggest that he would take any altruistic action toward Nick and Honey.

I think in many way's that Richard has finally had it - with this career (or lack there of) and with his marriage (or lack thereof). So because of his immediate anger at her for sleeping with Nick, and with his exhausted belief in anything else, he's willing to finally let his relationship die.

reply

spifflog,
I think you miss the fact that they're holding hands at the end. Their relationship isn't ending. He has a wife with a severe mental illness, and disclosing the "death" of their "son" is the way he thinks the relationship can go forward.

I also thought the previous poster's analysis of how this affects Nick and Honey is fascinating and probably insightful. Maybe what he does isn't exactly "altruistic." After all, he seems to take pleasure in tormenting all of them. But he is trying to help in his own way.

"Extremism in the pursuit of moderation is no vice."

reply

Their relationship isn't ending. He has a wife with a severe mental illness, and disclosing the "death" of their "son" is the way he thinks the relationship can go forward.

I just watched it for the first time and was thinking the same thing. George realized the truth might help end at least some of the insanity. He may have thought of it before, but wasn't as inspired to follow through with it.


reply

You may have a point. I thought of the child as a representative of the marriage itself. After Martha goes to far, Richard finally comes to himself and decides to kill the child. In other words, end the marriage. Him holding hands could be mere solace to his wife's bad reception of the breakup. It's not uncommon at all to see couples hugging or holding hand right after they breakup.

Either way, when Blondie finally understands it, he realises that if he keeps basing his relationship on lies, he'll eventually become like George and Martha. Him saying that they never could have a child simbolizes that even though they tried they couldn't have a nice relationship.

Rhaegar fought valiantly, Rhaegar fought nobly, Rhaegar fought honorably. And Rhaegar died.

reply

An interesting thing I saw recently for the first time on of my many viewings is a portrait of a male without a face...I believe it's near the mantle piece.

Swing away, Merrill....Merrill, swing away...

reply

Why does Elizabeth Taylor get so sad when Richard Burton tells her that their fictitious son is dead? If he doesn't really exist, why is she so sad.


I think she's sad because a fictional child was the only child she and George could have. I think one or both of them were unable to have children. From what she says I get the sense that she was behind the idea and wanted it and in a sense gave birth to it. George didn't want it anymore and killed the fiction.



And why does George Segal say, "I think I understand." What is it that he understands and how does he figure this out?


He's figured out that the son is made up.




It is my business to protect your majesty.... against all things.

reply

I hate this annoying contrived piece of stagecraft.

reply