I have seen the film version of "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" many times, which follows the play very closely, with the exception of some locale changes. I am still astounded by this play, and the fact that its central mystery, no matter how many times I read it, will never be uncovered. It is a play that is simultaneously avant-garde and accessible, that cuts through the pretension that exists in most "Broadway-worthy" dramatic work that came before it, and that has come after. WAOVW shows, more effectively than any other play I know, how people behave when their masks are supposedly off--when other, deeper layers of defenses are revealed. Although in the script, Martha and George do admit to being childless, to never having had the "son" they speak so much of--whether or not he ever existed can never truly be known. Because George and Martha are such expert game-players, constantly trying to fool themselves, and each other--the "truth" gets lost in that process. This play has been labeled a "dark comedy", but I would call it a "tragicomedy". This work is also very reflective of the early 1960's when it was written--when the social constraints of the 1950's were being sloughed off, and the swinger movement had entered the mainstream. However--George and Martha, or at least Martha, are so far from the stereotype of "swingers" that to label their characters as such would be an insult. As much as both of them are down to earth, they are also academics (or at least a "closet academic" in Martha's case).

The play is essentially "a performance within a performance"; the characters put on their party hats and play the roles of "party personalities", displaying all the faults and enthusiasms of cruel children. George and Martha are the Alpha-Couple, with Martha being the "Alpha Female"--or so it seems. Nonetheless--although George is consistently hounded by Martha--George also wields power in the relationship. In the end, both George and Martha play the fool; yet beneath their chaotic facades, both possess considerable wisdom. They are just trying to get through life; they are failures; they are laughing at themselves; still, one wishes that it could be so much better for them. If life is truly as ugly as the example provided by WAOVW--what other choice do they have, than to be as they are, and go on as they have been? Although the relationship as it is displayed in "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" make it appear that George and Martha have a hellish relationship, that may not actually be the case. The end of the play indicates a capacity on both their parts to, at least temporarily, makes peace with their tragedy, and with each other, thus making it bearable for them to go on living, with themselves and with one another. ( )

Disturbing. Fascinating. Disturbing. ( )

I liked the dialogue and I believe I want to see the movie with taylor and burton. though definitely dated. Did people really used to drink like this? Maybe this was back when people just stayed married. I didn't understand why they just didnt get divorced, except the prof was worried about his career and martha had some secret past which didn't seem to hurt her with other ambitious teachers. I didn't get the pretend son. Was the university president grandfather and everyone else who had been on campus the length of their marriage also going along with the charade? I could see the overarching themes, but had to take a lot on faith to along with it. at least to me in 2011. ( )

4.5* This play about a dysfunctional couple reads almost as well as it plays on stage. I have seen the film version with Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton (more than once) & I kept hearing their voices while I was reading. ( )

Honestly, reading this play made me feel anxious. It was fast paced and verging on the edge of madness. They're all batshit crazy and very unlikeable. Apparently it's a classic for portraying a darker side of romantic relationships on stage and the inner secrets of a marriage - and at the time it undoubtedly would've been groundbreaking to confront the idea that marriages were more than the facade presented to the public. But while I can appreciate that it was scandalous at the time, it's hard to remember that when pretty much all you see these days are divorces, split families and mental breakdowns. 1.5 stars, rounded up to 2 for appreciating that it was radical and trailblazing at the time. ( )