Within both Edward Albee’s “Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf?”  and Tennessee William’s “Cat on a hot tin roof”; we are faced with families and relationships built purely on denial, lies and hurt - hardly the pure fifties and sixties environment of America projected within Hollywood and other plays of the time. Within “Woolf”, upon the point of discussion of Nick’s recent developments in the scientific field, George lambasts him reducing all of his possible integrity claiming that Nick is planning to rearrange genes “so that everyone will be like everyone else” (1.330); such homogenisation of culture disgusts George. George’s final retort in reducing Nick is in describing a small part of Berlin in which everybody is different to one another; he finally exclaims that he “will not give up Berlin!” (1.600). George will not give up on America either; this dream has made them who they are. The American dream has been the creation of all the characters within both of the plays especially Big Daddy's whose rags to riches story highlights Brick’s failures and Big Daddy Pollitt’s disappointment in him; “I bummed, I bummed this country” (2. 115). Within these plays we see Albee and William’s America; the place of opportunity, the place of “freedom”. A place built upon ideals of the nuclear family simultaneously built off the backs of slavery.

Credit

Both plays begin and end within the same place, something that during the beginning may seem as simple as a living room or a spare bedroom, but as the play goes on we see that eventually these places are voids - a small pinpoint far away from the outside world. However, keeping with the vision of America each writer presents, there is a clear reading that both spaces actually could be microcosmic Americas. Williams comments within his notes to the designer of a “huge console combination of radio-phonograph (Hi-fi with three speakers) TV set”, an intentional focal point in the play, Williams makes a point of drawing our attention to it mainly due to its modernity and its contrast to its decisively old fashioned setting. It is no mistake that George and Martha Washington derive their names from the first presidential couple nor is it that George is reading Spengler’s “The Decline Of The West” later in the second act, or that the Washington’s reside on a campus called “New Carthage” which Billington comments “evokes a classically ruined civilisation”[1].Throughout the play even George and Martha’s relationship seems to parallel the tensions of the Cold War: “GEORGE: total war? MARTHA: total.” (2.675-2.676).

Credit

The decaying state of the old south in America is a theme prevalent within most of William’s work, the decaying American south and motifs of America’s dark history with slavery is the constant undercurrent of “Cat” (Interestingly subverted with Debbie Allen’s 2009 Broadway production which featured a distinguished all black cast). Lahr has been a staunch critic of all black productions of plays he sees as intrinsically “white” for a long time, often appropriating African American playwright August Wilson's quoted opinion on the matter; “to mount an all black production of… any play conceived for white actors… is to deny us our own humanity, our own history”. This sentiment of Lahr has weight as the setting and characters would only exist (bar the “gens de colour libre”) as white people. Looking at the play as an allegory for the dilemma of racism in the Deep South, I believe that the large Pollit plantation is not the microcosm of the old south that many interpret it to be, the microcosm of the old south is Big Daddy himself. Big Daddy serves simultaneously as an allegory of both the American dream and the old south, making his cancer none other than the deep problem that the old ousts has always had and ultimately the thing that led to its decline - the racism. “DOCTOR BAUGH: involved too much… it's gone past the knife” (3.141-288). The cancer affects two vital organs within Big Daddy, both organs designed to protect the human body from toxins. One of the clearest examples of William’s discussing the America he knew.

The humour of both plays punctuates all of the dialogue. Both plays in fact open with our two leads, a married couple with marital issues, sparring verbally with one another before the arrival of guests. Tossing back and forth insults and jabs with a stichomythic verbal sparring, which to other relationships might start a very real dispute, yet here there is a comradeship between each couple. “MARTHA: they're my big teeth. GEORGE: some of them.” William’s timeless and vivid sense of humour, often highlighted by his masterful use of the deep southern dialect is often used to diffuse otherwise dramatic situations, as the play goes on. “Cat”  opens with Maggie quipping in relation to her sister in laws “no neck monster” children, quickly retorting after Brick asks her why she calls “Gooper’s children no neck monsters”, “because the ave no necks!”. Whereas with George and Martha there is a true love seen; Albee often comments that “the best productions understand” the deep love in their relationship. However the “humorous” back and forth between Brick and Maggie the cat, is distinctively superficial in comparison to George and Martha; they are younger and more lustful (or at least seemed to be prior to Skipper's death), but when Maggie speaks of the past love they shared she only truly speaks in terms  of sex.

Credit

 “Cat”  was written and released amongst much sexual discussion due to the release of the “Kinsey reports” in the years preceding the play’s creation, which discussed in detail the shifting nature of human sexuality and the fluidity of sexual orientation. The plays are often associated with marking a significant shift in the way Americans conceived sexuality - just in time for Broadway audiences to empathise with a closeted character instead of siding with his possibly villainous father. Whereas “Woolf” was written upon the emerging sexual revolution of the sixties, yet was still met with major conservative disdain. In linking to the play’s microcosms of America once more, it is interesting that the hamartias of the characters could all be seen as hamartias of America itself. Maggie's sexual mores; “other men still want me”. Brick’s closeted homosexuality; “You think me an’ Skipper did, did, did! - Sodomy! Together?”, William’s keen use of biblical and legal language highlights Brick’s disgust at himself. The alcoholism in both plays; “MAGGIE: If I give you a drink, will you tell me”, alcohol becomes a currency in “Cat”.  Alcohol is a lifeblood in “Woolf” too offering even flowers life, “here dump these in some gin”) and the issue of infertility. These two plays are intrinsically tragic. Themes of disastrous miscommunication leads to multiple figurative deaths rather than literal within the plays and by the end we find that the characters of “Cat”  have very little left (despite Maggie achieving the inheritance she first sought). Williams does however somewhat subvert these allegories by having Big Daddy allude to his own sexual experimentation, as brief and ambiguous as it is, “Hold on a minute, son. - I knocked around in my time”. The interpretation of actress Kathleen Early[2] is that in fact there is another possible lie in the fray, that in fact Honey’s pregnancy, “her puff” was not the “hysterical pregnancy” that Nick claims it to be, in actuality the “puff went away” because Honey got an abortion then lied to her husband. The level of intimacy that we see within each of the play’s offers a certain voyeuristic quality, allowing us to bear witness to the most intimate details of failing marriages and family tragedy, and also intimate sexual moments or advances.

Much like America itself, truth and mendacity have always been a problem. Lies are another lifeblood of the relationships in both plays. The manner in which lies build and build and twist in the play is close to political. We see the way in which truth and lies help the construction of the nuclear family, a concept too bleak for many critics upon the plays releases. By the end of “Woolf”  the lies of George have twisted and enveloped each other so many different ways that where they start and where they end is no longer apparent; the greatest example is the matter of the “porcupine” and George's family”. We start off with George telling Nick the tale of a school friend who accidentally killed both his mother and father (his mother whilst “cleaning a shotgun” and his father in a car accident when “swerving to avoid a porcupine”), we then later learn as Martha taunts George (ultimately leading to him strangling her screaming “I’ll kill you!”) that this story was in fact George's first attempt at a novel. Martha continues however and reveals simultaneously mimicking George in discussion with her father that the novel is not fictional and “that… this… really happened” (the story now revealed to be autobiographical of George, with the staged pauses highlighting Martha’s possible apprehension at revealing this truth). However, the story twists once more when George finally “kills” his and Martha's son through him again “swerving to avoid a porcupine”. Within “Cat”, the lies and deceit are similarly devious, the two key lies being Big Daddy's cancer and Brick’s homosexuality, both have similarly devastating effects upon the Pollitt family night and their relationship. Through keeping Big Daddy's cancer from him, and seeing how many are involved in the lie we find a culture of secrecy that becomes normal. Dramatic irony also plays into this as Big daddy during the second act is so often overly happy at his “remission”, going around “laughing” with Brick about his mere “spastic colon”. Maggie, however is only using the concept of Brick’s lack of sexual drive to excuse her longing for Skipper, whereas she may claim that she only attempted to have sex with Skipper to allow herself peace in the rumour that Brick was gay.

Credit

In relation to biggest falsehood of the play, George and Martha’s son , the question could be asked whether George manipulated Martha from the start to reveal the “bit about the kid”, after repeatedly taunting Martha to not “start in on the bit about the kid” (whilst knowing her tendency to rebel against her husband's wishes) George begins to talk with Nick alone and upon Nick’s questioning whether the Washington’s have children George slyly replies with “that's for me to know and you to find out” - eluding that even in this moment George is planning something. Did George create a rule quite literally made by his own construction to be broken? As both plays draw to their dénouement’s, each character is physically and emotionally drained, secrets have been revealed and all truths are laid to bear. The actors themselves are too drained, leading to a separate cast to be used for matinee days for “Virginia” as the play. In their conclusions both plays offer us the simple question whether it is better to live with truths or lies, in “Cat”  and “Virginia” each of the building block lies that has kept the families together have been removed at differing costs; Nick and Honey’s relationship has faced issues that I feel they are not strong enough to handle, George and Martha come together and hold each other in what I see as a hopeful glimpse of the future, within “Cat” however the previous lies in regards to Big daddy’s cancer, the truth about Skipper and Brick’s possible homosexuality are present and dealt with only in turn to swapped for a brand new lie - Maggie’s child. Their closing lines perfectly encapsulate this hope / dread; we close “Virginia” with George consoling Martha and hear fears as she acknowledges that she is in indeed afraid of what’s to come. “GEORGE: Who’s afraid of Virginia Woolf, Virginia Woolf… MARTHA: I… am… George… I… am” (3.541 -544). “Cat” has two closing lines depending on the version you read.

“Cat”  over its time has ultimately had three different endings; the film ending (which ends with Brick and Maggie going to bed with each other as the music swells), the original Williams text ending and the Williams scribed Broadway ending based upon notes of director Kazan. I have chosen for this essay to use the original third act as written by Williams, for aswell as it being the true authorial intended climax (aswell as being the one used in near all productions since the sixties), I feel this ending best fits my conclusion. Kazan’s version closes out with a line almost winking to the audience as Maggie announces once more that she is “a cat on a hot tin roof”, whereas with Williams’s original vision we close with one of the most beautifully haunting lines ever committed to the page. “BRICK: Wouldn't it be funny if that was true”. With this ending we see the realisation of a generation (the baby boomers of the sixties), finally understanding the lies paved by previous generations masking the lies even before that – the lies of a nation.

Credit

Another concurrent theme between the plays is that of an emasculation of men due to their erectile dysfunction; both Skipper and Nick are ridiculed or spoken of harshly because they're not “studs” as George puts it. Despite both having reasonable reasons why; Skipper of course trying to disprove his own sexuality by bedding with Maggie and Nick being “too full of booze”. Honey, often forgotten and possibly the most tragic figure of the play entire, is subservient to Nick, Albee told Kathleen Early that Honey is in fact not the character's name and is merely a nickname given by Nick that just sticks for The Washington’s - but as the play continues we see another growing more and more out of this role, perhaps when the morning comes Honey will finally usurp her husband, after all despite initially Honey and Nick's relationship seeming far more “intact”, we see through all the hate and verbal venom to find that George and Martha are the truest couple of the two - despite perhaps the evening's events being spurred on by a jealousy for the younger couple. The manner in which male sexuality is so key to the male existence is a very prescient American issue, here two gay men are writing about this topic.  

The most distinct feature of the different legacies of the plays lies within having drastically different estates in control of each, the Albee stamp of only allowing productions strict to the script and the variety of more conceptual productions of Williams works due to the typical instruction of Williams during his “notes to designer” that “the set should be far less realistic than [he] so far implied”. Williams focused more within his writings and such upon the making of his plays and their inspirations, within his memoirs one would struggle greatly to find a direct analysis of his plays from himself. One of the most recent failed interpretations of “Cat”, is still running on the west end stage with Benedict Andrews modern minimalist staging of the play featuring rising star Jack O'Connell and screen siren Sienna Miller. The biggest publicity for the play's production, other than it’s showcasting, was the choice to have O’Connell and Miller feature in the play completely naked, an interesting choice which does heighten the intense sex of the play. The production didn't fit the grandness of the play and left only a vain sense of hollowness. Albee however is a different case. A planned production of “Woolf” fell apart after Albee refused to allow the casting of a black actor in the role of Nick, the director Michael Streeter stated the sickening comment that he “hoped the negative aspects of Albee would die with him”. Sam Rudy, representing the estate, stated that “Mr Albee wrote Nick as a Caucasian character, whose blonde hair and blue eyes are remarked on frequently in the play, even alluding to Nick's likeness as aryan”, a key them in George's verbal topping of Nick. Furthermore Rudy comments on the matter that the production would not have been updated to a modern period, hence an interracial marriage would “not have gone unacknowledged in conversations in that time and place and under the circumstances in which the play is expressly set by textual references to the 1960s”. These refusals often incorrectly lead the authors to be posed as the same bigots of mid 1900’s America that they are lambasting in their writing.

Credit

Other common production attempts for “Woolf”  regard having the roles recast as four gay men, Tim Adler described that “some critics and directors interpret the play as being about four gay men scoping at each other. This interpretation first amused and then annoyed Albee who would reach for his lawyer to shut down all male casts. ‘If I had wanted to write a play about four homosexuals, I would have done so’ he said”. Albee, being a homosexual himself, felt that the controversial initial response to play was down to discrimination against his sexuality, Martin Gottfried even attributed the lack of children in the play  to the men in the couples being homosexuals. The issue of fertility is also prevalent within “Cat”, with Maggie and Brick's “choice” not to have children contributed to multiple things; including Maggie's supposed “resilience” to the idea, and Bricks own resilience to his wife. Fertility and the need for a child were things expected of a woman extending back to the release of “Woolf”, both plays encapsulate the societal pressure on women to reproduce. Some even see William’s work as not sexual enough and not a true representation of the truth of the situation; “A work considered salacious and sensationalist by some, and overly cautious by others” [3]. The guardian even described “Cat”  as “one of the hottest, sultriest plays ever written”. As a modern reader, despite finding the sexual references of course tame in comparison with modern texts, the play still highlights the societal sexual pressures of the time - Even now, with casting choices such as siren Scarlett Johansson, still lead to Maggie the Cat being one of the sexiest literary figures of all time.

Both plays ultimately present us with two Americas built on devastating truths and life altering lies. Dircks wrote of Albee’s inspiration being “the state of American society during the 1960’s… Albee saw an American society sustaining itself on national illusions”[4], a vision he encapsulated within a single room and two couples on a college campus. This was a disgusting underbelly not unknown to Williams, having to hid his sexuality through facade or lies, in this regard he is not dissimilar to Brick.  With “Cat” Williams brought forward years of racial and social injustice over the space of a birthday party. These are the Americas presented within the plays. This is not, however, Albee’s and William’s America. This was and unfortunately still is America as we know it. Perhaps however this analysis is without weight, perhaps these plays are meant to simply entertain after all whenever asked what “Virginia” is about, Albee would simply reply… “It's about two and a half hours”.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Texts

  • Cat on a hot tin roof, Tennessee Williams (1955)
  • Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf, Edward Albee (1962)

Secondary texts

[1] Billington, who's afraid of Virginia Woolf, a misunderstood masterpiece

[2] the cine-files, “who's afraid of Virginia Woolf” podcast

[3] Billington, southern discomfort

[4] Dircks, pg. 140