"Virginia Woolf" and Edward Albee ...
Eric Shapiro - paper for Professor Cahn's Class - Modern Drama - Spring 2012 Semester ...
Edward Albee’s Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf functions asan exercise in stripping its characters, and by extension its audience, of their idealized notions regarding the so-called “American family.” In its place remains a shocking and, above all, sad portrait of life-crippling dysfunction that, ironically enough, may be closer to the truth. The effectiveness of the play hinges on Albee’s gradual, deliberate disclosure of the reality hiding behind the characters’ smokescreens of self-deception. Each time the play begins to settle into a pattern, some new information causes us to see the characters in a different light.
The major revelation in Act III is initially shocking, but in retrospect we see that it is the ultimate manifestation of a couple’s inability to reconcile their lives as they are with how they feel their lives should be. Pages 196 – 202 illuminate the devastating reality driving the characters’ erratic, but by this point, entirely predictable, interactions: it is easier to live in denial than it is to face up to one’s marital problems. The tragedy is that the “games” George and Martha play to avoid confronting their problems, and that we suspect Nick and Honey might play in the future, drain the joy from life and cripple their ambitions.
Act III begins with Martha alone in the living room, conversing with herself. In the absence of company to occupy her attention, she is forced play “the game” by herself. This is clearly not easy, as her words begin to take on a hysterical, child-like tone (she directs her speech at “Daddy”). For the first time, we see Martha with her defenses down and learn just how desperate and vulnerable she really is. It is clear that her constant verbal fencing with George is a defense mechanism they both depend on to avoid facing the truth. Alcohol plays a key role in this process. Martha explains: “We both cry all the time, and then, what do we do, we cry, and we take our tears, and we put ‘em in the icebox… until they’re frozen” (196). George and Martha’s sadness is so great that they must depend on drinking to endure life. Nick and Honey (particularly the latter), despite initially appearing relatively functional in comparison to their hosts, cope with their marital problems in the same way. The only difference is that they are still capable of holding their illusions in check, whereas George and Martha fail to do so. In other words, they successfully keep up the pretence of a successful marriage. Nevertheless, their excessive drinking is a sign that if they don’t shape up and confront reality they could very well end up like their hosts.
Honey, who Albee consistently portrays as the least intelligent character in his play, seems to have a better idea of what is going on than her husband. Her wink, which Nick describes to Martha in his frustration, is a telling sign that she is on some level aware of the game going on around her. This signals to us, just as it does to Martha, that the events of the play are not what they seem, but are on some level a farce acted out for the short-term emotional benefit of all the characters in the play. George and Martha’s game is a complex one that has evolved over decades of marriage. George later justifies revealing that his son is only made up by telling his wife: “You broke our rule, baby. You mentioned him… you mentioned him to someone else” (251). This comment (especially when coupled with Martha’s reaction to Honey’s wink) suggests that George and Martha are fully aware of the passive aggressive pattern of interaction they have developed to avoid expressing their true feelings for each other.
Honey and Nick’s method of coping, on the other hand, is rather straightforward. Martha touches on this when she says to Nick: “You always deal in appearances.” (201) Nick is disturbed to see his hosts, representatives of the academic establishment he hopes to join, for who they really are. He achieves an understanding of the hollowness of superficial appearances through watching an ostensibly sophisticated couple’s social presentation totally unravel in front of him. Nick is not as confident and carefree as he thinks he is. Every time George and Martha make sarcastic comments about their marital problems, he is forced to consider that his marriage could be moving in a similar direction.
Nick’s lack of confidence in his future and his unwillingness to deal with his problems manifest physically as sexual impotence. For all his apparent advantages over George, he is unable to maintain an erection long enough to sleep with Martha, which she implies with her comment: “Your potential’s fine… I haven’t seen such a dandy potential in a long time. Oh, but, baby, you sure are a flop” (199). This shatters the illusion of the virile young man, and suggests that perhaps Nick’s career is not as assured as his confidence leads the audience to believe.
Nick’s tendency to judge things entirely based on appearances is reflected in his career choice. As a biology professor involved in chromosomal research, he is devoted to achieving bodily perfection of the human animal. However, his inability to conceive of life’s more intangible elements impacts his capacity to connect with others on an emotional level. Consequently, he cannot fathom why George and Martha’s marriage is such a mess, nor can he reconcile the contradictions contained therein. For instance, Martha’s sentiment that: “George who is good to me, and whom I revile; who understands me, and whom I push off; who can make me laugh, and I choke it back in my throat… and whom I bite so there’s blood… sad sad sad” (201). Nick pays deference to Martha’s anguish by echoing her words, but Albee’s assertion that he is “echoing, still not believing” tells us that he does not truly understand. George’s hostility towards Nick stems from the younger man’s strictly materialist outlook on the world, the implicit notion that perfection is the same thing as uniformity, genetic and social. George is not willing to compromise what he sees as his individualism to realize his ambitions, whereas Nick’s ambitions seem to be the only thing defining him.
Above all, Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf is a play about how humans process their emotions. Martha and George’s agonizing patterns of interaction call attention to the difficulty of sharing one’s life with another human being with differing needs and perspectives. The characters in Albee’s play confront this inevitable dilemma by making light of the ensuing problems, whether by means of cynicism and passive-aggressive spite (Martha and George) or outright denial. The play ends on an ambiguous note; George and Martha seemed to have some idea of what they are doing wrong. Meanwhile, Nick and Honey can potentially enjoy the benefits of learning from another couple’s life-ruining mistakes. But it is far from clear whether they will choose to engage in the necessary introspection to truly change, when it is so much easier to submerse themselves in illusions. The revealing passage at the center of this essay suggests that both couples have a lot of work to do. The play’s title refers to the Modernist English author Virginia Woolf, an author known for her vivid, realistic explorations of the human psyche that underscore the difficulties every individual faces in achieving harmonious relations with other people.
Edward Albee’s Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf functions asan exercise in stripping its characters, and by extension its audience, of their idealized notions regarding the so-called “American family.” In its place remains a shocking and, above all, sad portrait of life-crippling dysfunction that, ironically enough, may be closer to the truth. The effectiveness of the play hinges on Albee’s gradual, deliberate disclosure of the reality hiding behind the characters’ smokescreens of self-deception. Each time the play begins to settle into a pattern, some new information causes us to see the characters in a different light.
The major revelation in Act III is initially shocking, but in retrospect we see that it is the ultimate manifestation of a couple’s inability to reconcile their lives as they are with how they feel their lives should be. Pages 196 – 202 illuminate the devastating reality driving the characters’ erratic, but by this point, entirely predictable, interactions: it is easier to live in denial than it is to face up to one’s marital problems. The tragedy is that the “games” George and Martha play to avoid confronting their problems, and that we suspect Nick and Honey might play in the future, drain the joy from life and cripple their ambitions.
Act III begins with Martha alone in the living room, conversing with herself. In the absence of company to occupy her attention, she is forced play “the game” by herself. This is clearly not easy, as her words begin to take on a hysterical, child-like tone (she directs her speech at “Daddy”). For the first time, we see Martha with her defenses down and learn just how desperate and vulnerable she really is. It is clear that her constant verbal fencing with George is a defense mechanism they both depend on to avoid facing the truth. Alcohol plays a key role in this process. Martha explains: “We both cry all the time, and then, what do we do, we cry, and we take our tears, and we put ‘em in the icebox… until they’re frozen” (196). George and Martha’s sadness is so great that they must depend on drinking to endure life. Nick and Honey (particularly the latter), despite initially appearing relatively functional in comparison to their hosts, cope with their marital problems in the same way. The only difference is that they are still capable of holding their illusions in check, whereas George and Martha fail to do so. In other words, they successfully keep up the pretence of a successful marriage. Nevertheless, their excessive drinking is a sign that if they don’t shape up and confront reality they could very well end up like their hosts.
Honey, who Albee consistently portrays as the least intelligent character in his play, seems to have a better idea of what is going on than her husband. Her wink, which Nick describes to Martha in his frustration, is a telling sign that she is on some level aware of the game going on around her. This signals to us, just as it does to Martha, that the events of the play are not what they seem, but are on some level a farce acted out for the short-term emotional benefit of all the characters in the play. George and Martha’s game is a complex one that has evolved over decades of marriage. George later justifies revealing that his son is only made up by telling his wife: “You broke our rule, baby. You mentioned him… you mentioned him to someone else” (251). This comment (especially when coupled with Martha’s reaction to Honey’s wink) suggests that George and Martha are fully aware of the passive aggressive pattern of interaction they have developed to avoid expressing their true feelings for each other.
Honey and Nick’s method of coping, on the other hand, is rather straightforward. Martha touches on this when she says to Nick: “You always deal in appearances.” (201) Nick is disturbed to see his hosts, representatives of the academic establishment he hopes to join, for who they really are. He achieves an understanding of the hollowness of superficial appearances through watching an ostensibly sophisticated couple’s social presentation totally unravel in front of him. Nick is not as confident and carefree as he thinks he is. Every time George and Martha make sarcastic comments about their marital problems, he is forced to consider that his marriage could be moving in a similar direction.
Nick’s lack of confidence in his future and his unwillingness to deal with his problems manifest physically as sexual impotence. For all his apparent advantages over George, he is unable to maintain an erection long enough to sleep with Martha, which she implies with her comment: “Your potential’s fine… I haven’t seen such a dandy potential in a long time. Oh, but, baby, you sure are a flop” (199). This shatters the illusion of the virile young man, and suggests that perhaps Nick’s career is not as assured as his confidence leads the audience to believe.
Nick’s tendency to judge things entirely based on appearances is reflected in his career choice. As a biology professor involved in chromosomal research, he is devoted to achieving bodily perfection of the human animal. However, his inability to conceive of life’s more intangible elements impacts his capacity to connect with others on an emotional level. Consequently, he cannot fathom why George and Martha’s marriage is such a mess, nor can he reconcile the contradictions contained therein. For instance, Martha’s sentiment that: “George who is good to me, and whom I revile; who understands me, and whom I push off; who can make me laugh, and I choke it back in my throat… and whom I bite so there’s blood… sad sad sad” (201). Nick pays deference to Martha’s anguish by echoing her words, but Albee’s assertion that he is “echoing, still not believing” tells us that he does not truly understand. George’s hostility towards Nick stems from the younger man’s strictly materialist outlook on the world, the implicit notion that perfection is the same thing as uniformity, genetic and social. George is not willing to compromise what he sees as his individualism to realize his ambitions, whereas Nick’s ambitions seem to be the only thing defining him.
Above all, Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf is a play about how humans process their emotions. Martha and George’s agonizing patterns of interaction call attention to the difficulty of sharing one’s life with another human being with differing needs and perspectives. The characters in Albee’s play confront this inevitable dilemma by making light of the ensuing problems, whether by means of cynicism and passive-aggressive spite (Martha and George) or outright denial. The play ends on an ambiguous note; George and Martha seemed to have some idea of what they are doing wrong. Meanwhile, Nick and Honey can potentially enjoy the benefits of learning from another couple’s life-ruining mistakes. But it is far from clear whether they will choose to engage in the necessary introspection to truly change, when it is so much easier to submerse themselves in illusions. The revealing passage at the center of this essay suggests that both couples have a lot of work to do. The play’s title refers to the Modernist English author Virginia Woolf, an author known for her vivid, realistic explorations of the human psyche that underscore the difficulties every individual faces in achieving harmonious relations with other people.