MovieChat Forums > Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966) Discussion > am I the only idiot

am I the only idiot

posted 11 years ago by blacknyellowsquid
14 replies | jump to latest

who didn't easily pick up that the son was fake/fictitous? I'm looking at all these comments and everyone seems so sure about it.

I guess I didn't sit and watch it all the way through. I watched the second half when I was a kid, so maybe my memory from there was wrong and shaped how I watched it tonight. But even tonight, dipped in and out. Maybe I should have paid more attention. I feel like I need to re-watch it.

I guess I assumed it was like...they had a kid, and she just liked to stay in denial about the fact that he died. So George rubbing it in her face at the end was breaking her little fantasy denial world.

But...yet....watching this time, that explanation didn't totally seem to match up with her reactions at the end and some of George's comments. So it did flicker through my mind...wait, maybe he didn't exist at all? But I wasn't sure. So I came on here and was like...oh, okay.

I need to watch it again lol. I usually have rather good film comprehension...but not this time.

[–] MdmBadenov 11 years ago

No, the son was a total invention. Nick realizes what's going on and when things go quiet he asks George "You couldn't have children?" and after a few seconds of quiet, George shook his head, looking down and gives an almost inaudible "No." A second or two later, Martha does the same. It was clear what a still-painful wound, disappointment and loss this was for both of them.

[–] SamoanJoes 11 years ago

What was the telegram then? Honey said she saw him eat it.

[–] SangriaInThePark 11 years ago

What was the telegram then? Honey said she saw him eat it.

This is the only part of the film I don't understand. Why did Honey say she saw him eat the telegram when that clearly wasn't the case? We saw them outside after the supposed telegram arrived (after the "doorbell" chimed) and he didn't eat anything.

All their lies about makeup and long hair are still there.

[–] SamoanJoes 11 years ago

Maybe she was too drunk?

[–] LuvvieHowell 11 years ago

Their was no telegram. George didn't eat it.

Honey was extremely drunk and open to agreeing with anything. You can see George talking out loud to himself and inventing the telegram story...he even rehearses how he will tell Martha this devastating news.

My question is: If Martha KNEW this was all a game, why does she ask to see the telegram?

[–] missscoobyca 9 years ago

George kept drawing Honey into his story to back-up his claims of the fictitious telegram because it was another game. She had to corroborate George's story lest he reveal what he knew about the truth of her abortion/purposeful miscarriages(s)! Hope this helps! =)

[–] tatertawt 9 years ago

George kept drawing Honey into his story to back-up his claims of the fictitious telegram because it was another game. She had to corroborate George's story lest he reveal what he knew about the truth of her abortion/purposeful miscarriages(s)! Hope this helps! =)

Wow, that makes so much sense. That never even crossed my mind.  Is there a way to become intelligent enough to enjoy movies like this?

Every time Miss Voodoo is asleep Shelly walks hard as *beep* and it wakes her up.

[–] Dejay 9 years ago

Also the "doorbell" was the chimes ringing when you slam open the front door when Martha and Nick went upstairs. Honey heard that and probably misunderstood. Or deliberately tried to suppress what was happening (which fits the theme of truth and illusion).

[–] blacknyellowsquid 11 years ago

Well yeah... I'm accepting that he was an invention now. I was just wondering if I'm the only person who didn't get it just easily from watching the movie (without looking at comments/other stuff online). That's why I need to watch it again...I'm sure the whole thing would make more sense now.

And the 'couldn't' comment...I just heard "you couldn't?" I thought he was asking "You couldn't just let it go, could you?" lol. But I was wrong!

[–] Dejay 9 years ago

I think the play is rather well known, so it's kinda spoiled for many people who even heard others talk about it.

Also many tv-trope aware people become immediately suspicious about the son, even though you don't know if he died, is somebody else's child or just screwed up by the two and in a psych ward.

[–] ShannonTriumphant 11 years ago

I didn't get it (the fictional son) right away either; I don't think we were supposed to.

The way both George and Martha spoke about him seemed so real! But then weird clues started popping up, such as his description by George as "our blue-haired, blond-eyed son"...it was like, "HUH? Wait a minute...something is really off here! This is more than his just being totally bombed!"

I even got fooled by the "accident" and the kid's fake death! I'm pretty gullible but was also so riveted on the contest between George and Martha, that I kept wishing that Nick and his idiotic wife would just go away, so we could see two movie greats square off--what a show!

Oddly, I had a distinct feeling, even at the end, that they would probably just "re-invent" the kid and go back to their old ways!

Nothing is what it seems. Everything is a test. Rule #1: Don't...get...caught.

[–] SamoanJoes 11 years ago

I didn't get it (the fictional son) right away either; I don't think we were supposed to.

This is one of the problems I had with the film. The dialogue was too fast and constant that I thought I missed something. I wasn't sure if it was an ambiguity thing to make the audience question the existence of the son. The writers should have made it more clear somehow.

[–] ShannonTriumphant 11 years ago

The dialogue was too fast and constant that I thought I missed something. I wasn't sure if it was an ambiguity thing to make the audience question the existence of the son. The writers should have made it more clear somehow.

I don't really mind fast dialogue if it fits the scenario, such as a drunken fight! It puts you in the moment more. That's why I almost always watch films that I like several times; I know that if I'm really involved, I'll miss subtext and other clues. People who are trained in acting or directing, I've noticed, will see these more readily.

Another problem I've noticed is translating a play (which this was) into a film. Many great directors will cut much of the dialogue and let visual clues, facial expressions and even scenery give use the message instead. Ang Lee and John Huston are well-known for doing this. But I still think that this situation--a drunken fight between spouses--needed lots of dialogue to be believable. After all, how many times do you go to a party where people are drinking and see everyone sitting around, talking quietly and slowly?

Nothing is what it seems. Everything is a test. Rule #1: Don't...get...caught.

[–] Strazdamonas 8 years ago

I had a lingering suspicion about the son either being made up or dead from the first scenes mentioning it. Martha struck me as "invents a story to humiliate george" from the very beginning. Though given the ending dialogue i got no idea how you didnt get it. The stud flat out spells it out.

------------------------------------------------
The spirit of abysmal despair