Thanks for this discussion. :)
1.Except we know that Martha and George also came up with their story of having a son. The reason they'd make up this life story as well doesn't seem to be clear, but I think it's fair to argue Martha and George can't be trusted.
2.If he is a psychopath, then this is a movie about a horribly failed marriage involving a psychopath which still fits my problem with the movie: the characters (Martha clearly seems to have major mental issues as well) are so over the top that no themes about marriages can be explored that would apply to most people.
3.I think there is a too common view that an insane/irrational person has to be a psychotic or a person suffering from schizophrenia or something like that.
This is the definition of 'insane' that google presents:
in a state of mind that prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction
A psychotic certainly lacks normal perception, but most clinically insane people are still able to take in information around them fairly accurately as well as be able to plan and form strategies. An insane person simply makes decisions that a 'reasonable person' would regard as irrational or, as I wrote previously, unacceptable. An obvious, though extreme example, of an insane person are American terrorist bombers (or mostly, thankfully, would be terrorists.) Fairly obviously these people are genuinely able to plan to carry out their plans, but they are also obviously irrational in all sorts of ways, from believing that their violence acts can accomplish anything, to having obsessions and to not realizing, as most people do, that random senseless violence is not an acceptable form of behavior.
Obviously neither Martha nor George were terrorists, but I think they fit the above, more easily clearly George: his extreme attempts to manipulate Nick didn't have any obvious point, he seemed obsessed with playing his games, and he didn't seem to realize how unacceptable his behavior was.
reply
share
whitecaps (40)
6 years ago
Two last points, when you asked 'what games George played.' I referenced 'games people play' which is a Joe South song that came out a couple years after this movie (1968) song. From googling the date of the song, it seems 'Games People Play' is also the title of a book published in 1964.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Games_People_Play_(book)
I, of course, had forgotten that both George and Martha refer to their actions in the movie as 'games.' "We haven't finished our latest game yet." I believe George says to Nick on at least one occasion.
The play 'Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf', was first performed in 1962 and this book appears to be one of the first, if not the first, examinations of what is now called 'Game Theory' that the mathematician John Nash made (more) famous from the movie "A Beautiful Mind" greatly advanced. I'm familiar at a basic level with both game theory and behavior economics and I can't really see any connection with Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf and those things.
2.My problem with the movie/play is based on the interpretation that it is meant as a commentary on failed marriages. There are other interpretations of the the movie/play based on analysis of the author's Edward Albee's other works: For instance,
https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2016/sep/18/whos-afraid-of-virginia-woolf-edward-albee
I don't know anything about Albee's other works, so I have no opinion on any of that.
reply
share
LetThemEatCake (2717)
6 years ago
In my opinion they made up their son between them as a way to cope with not being able to have a son in real life, they would probably imagine him and discuss them among them, it was a private thing and Martha broke their one rule, not to tell anyone, which is the trigger for everything, that doesn't seem "crazy" to me. Martha and George may lie however this film is NOT a case of an unreliable narrator, for there is no narrator in the film, so you can recognize what is true and what isn't based on certain cues.
clinically insane people are unable to function in real life. martha and george may have neurosis and problems but they were not crazy. the movie is not just about marriage so why judge it as so.
reply
share
whitecaps (40)
6 years ago
1.While George does stick to the basic story of the people getting killed and the like, he ascribes the killer to several different people. That it's really 'the story of his life' is not clear. It could have been the story of his father's life, his made up son's life or an altogether fictional story that George made up to use as part of his games. I agree that last hypothesis is the least likely, but the first two along with it being the story of his life I'd say are all equally likely.
2.I don't know on what basis you claim that (clinically) insane people are unable to function in real life.
A.The terrorists I mentioned above certainly do until they attempt to commit their acts when they are usually caught.
B.It can also be argued in the film that George was not really able to function in real life. Had Martha's father not been the President of the College, it could be debated whether a person who acted the way that he did around Nick could have held any job.
reply
share
LetThemEatCake (2717)
6 years ago
1. One must pay attention to the cinematic language, when George tells his story, the camera closes in, Burton's acting becomes more serious, the soundtrack accentuates the effect, all those are signifiers that the dialogue in the scene is different than the rest, it has some added meaning, in other words, it could be true. Furthermore, when Martha tells a similar story, George explodes in anger strangling her, why would he do that? You don't think he did it just to impress Nick and follow a charade. It's a chink in the armor. All of these elements can be used to conclude that his story was in fact, true.
2. I don't see anything in the film that supports your argument that they are insane, or that George acted the way he did with Nick around other people, not that it could be considered clinically insane, not to me anyway.
reply
share
whitecaps (40)
6 years ago
1.George exploded in anger on several occasions, although I believe that's the only time he turned violent. He may also have turned violent when Martha mentioned their 'son.' That's another of the reasons why I think he's clearly insane. Not that his exploding in anger or even acting violently by themselves are indications of insanity, it's his total behavior.
2.The only information we have is what is presented in the film. If George acted the way he did around Nick who was a perfect stranger to him, why wouldn't he act that way to any random person?
Again, if you read the definition of insanity as provided by Google, I think George's behavior clearly fits the description:
in a state of mind that prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction
'preventing normal behavior/social interaction.' It doesn't say 'and' it says 'or'. I'd agree that George had normal perception, but his behavior was extreme and completely abnormal and certainly Nick and Honey would dispute that George had any social interaction skills.
I'd agree that there is no evidence presented in the film that George could not have held his job had his father in law not be President of the College, but there certainly is no evidence presented the other way either.
Anyway, to switch topics about the film. You mentioned there are other aspects to the movie than being about marriage. What other aspects do you think there are in the film?
reply
share
Drooch (5333)
4 years ago
They’re not crazy, they have some emotional traumas, a dysfunctional relationship and they’re blind drunk.
And this is the night it all explodes.
reply
share