3rd time I've seen this movie and I STILL don't understand . . .
Did they, or did they not have a living son?
If yes, did he die?
If he died, how did he die?
It's a fantasy, even in the source material.
share
MovieChat Forums > Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966) Discussion > 3rd time I've seen this movie and I STIL...
They did not. He was made up by Martha, and George went along with it as a way to appease her and give her what she wanted but couldn't have. They essentially made up a child together as a buffer, a way for them to relate to and with each other without having to face their mutual disappointment with each other and the way their lives had turned out.
George "killed" him as a way to a) hurt Martha, and b) free them from the binds of their mutual illusions of life. It was a way for them to let go of the life they "could have" had and the anger and resentment they still harbored about being cheated, in a way, out of what they wanted.
I too thank you queen for this assessment. I saw this again last night on TCM and still didn't understand what was going on.
shareI watched it on TCM too. I've seen the movie about a dozen times, but this was my husband's first viewing. His reaction was "I feel exhausted after watching this movie."
It's an emotional film, with many layers. I guess the accepted convention about the film is that the son is completely imaginary, but I think the questions is open to interpretation.
Martha has no problem cheating on George. She doesn't even make ANY attempt to hide it, taking Nick into her bedroom while his wife is passed out in the car, and her husband is walking home. I don't it is a stretch to propose that one of Martha's affairs ended up with her pregnant...16 years ago, in 1950. Not wanting to have a child that wasn't her husband's, she got an abortion (terminating a pregnancy in 1950 was a very big deal. Illegal, dangerous, and never discussed in polite company.)
I can see Martha feeling intense self-hatred over terminating her pregnancy. Stick with me on this for a few more seconds...she then finds out that she CAN'T conceive with George...so that pregnancy was her only chance to have a child. She blames herself, she blames George, and so she invents a son...she didn't have him scraped out her, no, no, she gave birth...an 'easy birth' as she puts it. It's a fantasy that George indulges in, but also recognizes he can hurt her with.
I find it very interesting that the tipping point for George was when he sees, through the bedroom window, his wife having sex (or trying to) with another man. THAT IS WHEN HE DECIDES TO KILL THE 'SON.'
The invention started with Martha's infidelity, and it ends the same way.
Thoughts?
I guess the accepted convention about the film is that the son is completely imaginary, but I think the questions is open to interpretation.
I don't believe that the fictional son is "open to interpretation" since this is the whole premise of the film. It's the reason why Nicks says something along the lines of "Now I think I understand. You can't have kids."
I don't it is a stretch to propose that one of Martha's affairs ended up with her pregnant...16 years ago, in 1950. Not wanting to have a child that wasn't her husband's, she got an abortion
Where are you getting that information? This was never stated or implied in the movie. There are a lot of implications in this movie, but that is indeed a stretch.
The movie is very straightforward: George married Martha figuring it would advance his career at the university since her father was the university president. Ironically, it ended up hurting his career, because it turned out she can't have kids and he can't leave her without ruining his career (which her father controls). So they've learned to cope with each other by drinking, inventing a fictitious son to fill the void, and hurling insults at one another. Even so, they actually do love one another, which is why each one reacts with such anger when one of them tries to use the younger couple to exact revenge on each other.
Your theory is interesting, though. share
I watched it on TCM too. I've seen the movie about a dozen times, but this was my husband's first viewing. His reaction was "I feel exhausted after watching this movie."
It's an emotional film, with many layers. I guess the accepted convention about the film is that the son is completely imaginary, but I think the questions is open to interpretation.
Martha has no problem cheating on George. She doesn't even make ANY attempt to hide it, taking Nick into her bedroom while his wife is passed out in the car, and her husband is walking home. I don't think it is a stretch to propose that one of Martha's affairs ended up with her pregnant...16 years ago, in 1950. Not wanting to have a child that wasn't her husband's, she got an abortion (terminating a pregnancy in 1950 was a very big deal. Illegal, dangerous, and never discussed in polite company.)
I can see Martha feeling intense self-hatred over terminating her pregnancy. Stick with me on this for a few more seconds...she then finds out that she CAN'T conceive with George...so that pregnancy was her only chance to have a child. She blames herself, she blames George, and so she invents a son...she didn't have him scraped out her, no, no, she gave birth...an 'easy birth' as she puts it. It's a fantasy that George indulges in, but also recognizes he can hurt her with.
I find it very interesting that the tipping point for George was when he sees, through the bedroom window, his wife having sex (or trying to) with another man. THAT IS WHEN HE DECIDES TO KILL THE 'SON.'
The invention started with Martha's infidelity, and it ends the same way.
Thoughts?
I watched it on TCM too. I've seen the movie about a dozen times, but this was my husband's first viewing. His reaction was "I feel exhausted after watching this movie."
It's an emotional film, with many layers. I guess the accepted convention about the film is that the son is completely imaginary, but I think the questions is open to interpretation.
Martha has no problem cheating on George. She doesn't even make ANY attempt to hide it, taking Nick into her bedroom while his wife is passed out in the car, and her husband is walking home. I don't think it is a stretch to propose that one of Martha's affairs ended up with her pregnant...16 years ago, in 1950. Not wanting to have a child that wasn't her husband's, she got an abortion (terminating a pregnancy in 1950 was a very big deal. Illegal, dangerous, and never discussed in polite company.)
I can see Martha feeling intense self-hatred over terminating her pregnancy. Stick with me on this for a few more seconds...she then finds out that she CAN'T conceive with George...so that pregnancy was her only chance to have a child. She blames herself, she blames George, and so she invents a son...she didn't have him scraped out of her, no, no, she gave birth...an 'easy birth' as she puts it. It's a fantasy that George indulges in, but also recognizes he can hurt her with.
I find it very interesting that the tipping point for George was when he sees, through the bedroom window, his wife having sex (or trying to) with another man. THAT IS WHEN HE DECIDES TO KILL THE 'SON.'
The invention started with Martha's infidelity, and it ends the same way.
Thoughts?
Wow--that's pretty brilliant. The great thing about the film is that you can layer almost anything on the characters--everything is open for interpretation. "Truth or illusion, George, don't you know the difference?"
shareTowards the end of the film George "kills" off the son at will, and Martha protests with "you're not allowed" - which makes it pretty unambiguous that the child was part of their world of fantasy. No offense intended, but how you could watch the movie not one but three times and miss this?
share