by Douglas
Messerli
Ernest Lehman (screenplay, based on the play by Edward
Albee), Mike Nichols (director) Who's
Afraid of Virginia Woolf? / 1966
I could not have known on that evening of June 1966, when I
first attended Who's Afraid of Virginia
Woolf?, that film history was changing, caused in part by this film and
Michelangelo Antonioni's work of the same year, Blow-Up. The former "special assistant" to Lyndon
Johnson, Jack Valenti, had just been encouraged by Universal Studio head Lew
Wasserman to resign his White House post and become head of The Motion Picture
Association of America, a position Valenti held for 38 years. Warner Brothers
was about to release Who's Afraid of
Virigina Woolf? and MGM was preparing to release Blow-Up in the US, both of them considering the possibility of
sending the films out to theaters without ratings in fear of what Valenti
called "the draconian piece of censorship" of the Hayes Code. In
response Valenti and his staff eventually established the MPAA rating code that
rid the system of X-rating, replacing it with NC-17, for adults only.
Fortunately,
writer and producer Lehman chose Nichols as the director, who then brought in
Elizabeth Taylor and her then-husband Richard Burton. Cinematographer Haskell
Wexler was also a brilliant choice, as were the other members of the cast,
George Segal and Sandy Dennis, the latter of whom seems perfect for the role,
even though she later played similar characters in nearly every film in which
she appeared.
The wicked twosome
of the Burtons could not be better for Albee's George and Martha, whose lives
are determined by their nightly verbal games. Albee himself has defined his
major characters as people who use "language to wound and to amuse."
And the author admits the film version is fairly close to his play.
Both play and
film have virtually no story to tell, since the only thing that really
"happens" is that after a college campus party a young couple, Nick
and Honey—he recently hired on the faculty—take up the invitation to stop by
for drinks. George is in the History Department, while Nick is a biologist.
Martha's father is the President of the college.
The rest of the
action is a thing of language, or, as George puts it, a "walking of what
is left of our wits." The foursome, already somewhat drunk from the campus
affair, continue their drinking as they play a series of emotional games,
including "getting the guests" and "humping the host."
Yet, as Albee has
argued, and I have argued for Williams, these are not gay plays posing as
pictures of married life. The couples may be somewhat campy constructions, but
they are heterosexual, and their battles are those of husbands and wives, the
latter of who focus strongly on the desire for children, Honey having undergone
a false pregnancy, with Martha creating an imaginary twenty-one-year-old son,
whom George verbally kills off in the last scenes.
Both Nick and
George seem to have lost their virility: Nick is unsuccessful, evidently, when
he attempts to “mount: Martha, and George is defined early on as a wimp by his
wife. The women on the other hand, are quite forceful and vibrant: although she
is unable to keep up with the others' drinking, Honey's weird dance of the
seven veils (she has only one) reveals her sexual prowess, and Martha
throughout the film has the constitution and earthiness of an ox. Taylor's call
to the two men on the lawn, with her bleatingly simple shout of "Hey!
Hey!" is one of the most memorable scenes of the film, deflating all the
clever convolutions of the tongue that have preceded it. Both Honey and Martha
are clearly disappointed with their sexual lot.
The punning song
of the party, "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" was sung by faculty
wives and amused them highly. As Harold Lamport observed in his Saturday
Review piece on the play, the song suggests a fear of intellectual women
whom Virginia Woolf represented.
As
sung by the faculty wives, the refrain seems dual and ambivalent: we
faculty
wives—witness our light-hearted song-and-dance—are really not
so
intellectual as Virginia Woolf and we are a little jealous and afraid of
the
intellectual type whom our husbands may prefer: and, less clearly,
speaking
for our men, though intellectuals (mostly), they are often in-
secure
as males in the presence of the intellectually outstanding woman
and
they are afraid of the Virginia Woolf in us....
Lamport may be
right, but Woolf also represents to these women, strongly heterosexual beings,
a life they fear, with lesbianism and a descent into depression resulting in
suicide. It is finally that possibility, it seems to me, that Martha
envisions—a world of isolation and even death—that ends the play, as she
responds to George's repeating of the question:
"I...am....George....I.....am...." The truth of her existence cannot
entirely be hidden, even by all their dreadful "fun and games."
Los Angeles,
June 11, 2016
Reprinted from World
Cinema Review (2014).
No comments:
Post a Comment