What Did it Mean?

Its been more than 50 years since I saw that movie.
I can 't remember.





David

Well, you're a big help! It is driving me insane. I sat there for about half an hour with my jaw dropped going Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?

Maybe its the writers' fault
for not making it CLEARER to understand.
That 's their job.





David

I think it was supposed to be one of those artsy type films with some underlying whatchamacallit. Seriously, I am clueless.

I remember that I was not particularly impressed,
except with Elizabeth Taylor.




David

It has always been hard for me to watch because the characters were so terrible to each other. I wish I hadn't of seen it at all now but I really would like to understand what it was all about.

They never had a son.

It was a fantasy son who they were supposed to keep between the 2 of them, and Martha broke the rules by talking about him in front of others.

So, George killed him by saying there was a telegraph.

That reminds me of a movie called Nashville, maybe in the 1970s.

I nearly went nuts with boredom
and lack of comprehension. Someone told me
that Robert Altman movie r like that.
That was a great movie to avoid.





David

Yeah, you are right. I just found a site that explained it all. I have to say I am very disappointed now. Don't ask me why, I just am. It was all a game. Torturing each other for years over a game. Thanx Chai2!

http://www.filmsite.org/whos3.html

LOL! That was another movie you just sat there with your jaw open wondering what in the world is this!

Thank u, Chai.





David

It's been a long time, but I do remembeer a bit:

Martha (E. Taylor) obviously is a very strong personality; her husband is rather weak. She thinks she is somebody, obviously she thinks he is a nobody. A college teacher who is unsuccessful according to the Taylor bitch. My, he hasn't even published. This best thing to happen didn't. He should have slapped the **** out of her.

Sad set of circumstances. Creating the invisible baby. The two probably like to act out their torcherous roles, then turn on whoever shares their company couple.

Hated that movie. Husband and I used to know a couple like those two, who like to involve others in their life. Stick around them long enough and they'll start picking away with anybody who is brave enough to experience them. Poor babies.

I really don't condone men hitting women but sheesh, I'd have knocked the stuffing out of her myself.

U know, something like that (telegram)
has happened for REAL, more than once,
when the War Dept. told parents of the loss in battle of their son,
but the boy shows up in good health because
thay got the names confused; mistaken identity.

That must be emotionally dramatic.





David

Arella Mae, I don't think that a couple having an imaginary child is a game. They were clearly fulfilling some kind of need.

I never condone a man hitting a woman (or vice versa). He was an adult. If he was so miserable, he could have left. If she was so miserable, she could have left. Obviously neither of them left because they found something in the relationship, tortured as it was.

This misery they inflict on each other and their need for each other and the misery is what makes the story difficult to watch and powerful.

I believe that Albee was addressing the many distorted, convoluted, and painful relationships which somehow sustain the participants.

I agree Roberta.

This is one of my favorite movies, Because it is so difficult to watch.
Yes, the child was not a game. It was one of the facets of their relationship. They certainly didn't torture each other over this one thing over the years.

Theirs is an S&M relationship, with the roles reversing as needed, to give the other the pleasure of being tormented. George may be weaker in some aspects than Martha, but he could certainly give as good as he got.

IMHO, this movie is one of the few I would call "perfect" every move, every word, every glance and silence is masterful.

Is it light entertainment? No. It does expose for a moment the deepest and darkest that is in each of us. As G & M start to pick away at their guests, parts of their darkness come out too. The young teacher and his timid wife have had their relationship changed, and they can either ignore it in the morning, pretend it didn't happen, letting it fester over the years, or they can let it out, maybe become G&M themselves.

The lack of a child in their marriage is "proof" of G's weakness, his inability to be man enough to give M a child. That give M the freedom to flaunt her slutty sexuality, which turns out to be a tease when the young teacher starts to respond to her. She turns on him, visciously emasculating him too. She's inviting him, and the young wife to join in their game too. Did M sense in the 2 of them, at the earlier faculty party, that they might be willing participants? I think so, myself. Why else would she have invited them over at such a late hour? Why did G not object? Did he sense M was bringing home new playthings? Perhaps as a gift for him?

Part of what is so disturbing about this film is this feeling that time as been suspended, or at least moving tortuously slowly. What time do you think it is when G & M first come home? What time is it in the heat of the action? What time is it when they go to the coffe shop?

When G & M first come home, and she makes the announcement they are having guests, it feels to me like it's at least 11pm. Too late to be having company coming over. They are already both in their cups. M makes the proclaimation there will be guests, and G, instead of objecting, although he looks tired, is up for it. For the rest of the movie, once the games begin, if you would ask me "What time is it?" I would always say "It's 1:15am" No matter what time is just stuck at 1:15am. It will be 1:15 am forever, or until G & M say time can move forward again.
It's 1:15am, when people would be getting desparate to get to bed, especially if they'd been drinking. Sleep however, is not part of the plan.

This night is not the first night like this for G & M, nor will it be the last.


Edit:
Here's a small cut and paste from the link provided....

You know, there's only been one man in my whole life who's ever made me happy. Do you know that?...George, my husband...George, who is out somewhere there in the dark, who is good to me - whom I revile, who can keep learning the games we play as quickly as I can change them. Who can make me happy and I do not wish to be happy. Yes, I do wish to be happy.

http://www.filmsite.org/whos3.html

Thanks, Arella. To think, that for 45 years, I didn't "get it"!

I have to rent that film again, and watch it with new eyes.

I respectfully dissent from the notion that male fertility
is a measure of strength or "weakness".

I see value in a vasectomy.
That can save a lot of unnecessary trouble n expense.





David

wait, having an imaginary family is weird



uh oh