Talk:Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Unknown This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.

This article deserves to be re-written; much of it appears to have been written by a person or persons who have only seen the movie once, and have not read the play. There is a serious lack of understanding contained in the article regarding the origin and meaning of the title and its reference to Virginia Woolf. It also contained factual errors regarding the text of the original play. There is very little discussion of the underlying dynamics of the play, mainly the issue of whether or not Martha and George actually had a son. Anyone who has seriously reviewed the play should realize that Martha and George "created" a fictional son. It would also be useful to analyze the effect this game had on their relationship. Additionally, there ought to be a discussion of why Martha, at the end of the play (upon being asked by her husband "Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf?") replies "I am, George." ~~[[User:jlmurrel]~~] December 17, 2006

Note to WikiProject Broadway participants: Article needs information about the current Broadway production, and previous broadway productions. EvilPhoenix July 2, 2005 05:44 (UTC)

Wasn't this a book before it became a movie? -- April

Well it was a play by Edward Albee. Thanks, I forget things like that.

Should the film and play sections be separated into two different entries? -Markt3, 8/11/05

If the film section expands significantly, perhaps, but there's not really enough info to warrant a split right now. Dysprosia 09:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Plot summary" section

The Plot Summary section is just awful. It's meandering and unclear, and reads like someone who's mumbling to himself or herself. Can we do something about it? Moncrief 02:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Like what? Could you perhaps be more descriptive? Dysprosia 04:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Though the incorporation of important, respective lines is nice, I agree that the summary is unclear. Perhaps a more concise summary with emphasis on the crucial actions; then sections on themes, symbolism, brief character analysis, etc. -- Perrin

[edit] About the title

I think a couple of lines on why the play has been named "Who's Afraid of Virginai Woolf?" would be in order and make the description complete. --Gurubrahma 17:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I personally believe that the summary of the three 'games' has been written excellently. He does not speak as if rambling to him/herself but as if talking to someone that has a good understanding of the play or has at least viewed the production. I am studying the play as part of my A Level English Literature course and i must admit i found it extremely beneficial. Thanks

[edit] Internal consistency regarding meaning of the title

This article needs to find some internal consistency regarding the meaning of the title. One paragraph declares that it's a meaningless pun. Then, two paragraphs later, the article contradicts itself and declares that it's not a meaningless pun. The way the author of the second paragraph chose italicize the world "that" even suggests that he or she realized they were contradicting the previous statement in this article.

I've never seen the play and only have seen the movie once, many years ago. So I don't feel at all qualified to offer a determination regarding which interpretation is correct. But the article absolutely should not "argue with itself" like that.

If there is a consensus within the literary community on the point, then that is what this article should reflect. If there is not such a consensus, then both points of view should be reflected in the article, but neither should be stated as if it's an undisputed fact. It should be something more along the lines of "Certain critics say this about the title . . . Others interpret it as that . . ."

As I said, I'm not in any position personally to determine which of those two approaches should be adopted, but it would be nice if someone more familiar with the literary world's critical analyses of this play would make that determination and re-write the article accordingly (preferably providing citations, of course). Mwelch 20:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oscar Levant, The Unimportance of Being Oscar, Pocket Books 1969 (reprint of G.P. Putnam 1968), p. 6 says that the title originated as graffiti. Which means that Albee himself may not have had one specific meaning in mind. - Jmabel | Talk 01:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. With that lead from you, I also found an inteview with Albee discussing that graffiti origin of the title. I'm going to update this article now. Mwelch 02:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)