That 70s Movie Podcast
A look back at the films that defined cinema's greatest era - the 1970s!
That 70s Movie Podcast
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
This week on That '70s Movie Podcast, Jonathan and Michael pour a tall one for the 1966 classic "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?"
In this episode, we marveled at the GOAT-level performances from Elizabeth Taylor (Martha) and Richard Burton (George), praised Mike Nichols' highly cinematic take on a classic American play, and debated what this layered movie is trying to tell us. We also delved into the mystery of George and Martha's marriage, questioned the motives of George Segal (Nick) and Sandy Dennis (Honey), and explained why a movie made in 1966 is featured in a podcast devoted to '70s cinema.
So take the fried chicken out of the fridge, grab the bergin from the bar, and settle in for the latest episode of That '70s Movie Podcast!
If you're enjoying the podcast, please subscribe and also take a moment to leave a review and let us know which film you'd like us to discuss next.
Also, support the podcast by buying us a cup of coffee!
I'm really looking forward to this one.
SPEAKER_03Get to that door, you. Come on in! I said, get over there and answer that door.
SPEAKER_04Whatever. Just don't start on the bit, that's all.
SPEAKER_03A bit? What kind of language is that? You haven't telling one of your students for God's sake. Don't start on the bit about the kid, that's all. Much too much. Yeah, well, I'll start in on the kid if I want to. I'd advise against it. Well, good for you. Come on in! Get over there and open that door. You'll be advised, but get over there.
SPEAKER_04All right, huh? The loved ones. Nice the way some people still have manners and just don't come breaking into other people's houses if they do hear some subhuman monster yowling at them from inside.
SPEAKER_03God damn you!
SPEAKER_00Welcome everybody to the latest episode of VAT70s movie podcast. I'm your host, Michael A. Cohen, joined by my co-host Jonathan Kirscher. Jonathan, how are you doing today? I continue to hang in there. Yes. Yes, that sounds about right these days. So uh looking forward, actually I'm heading off on vacation next week. Break as I'd take a little time off, so we might not be with you uh for a little while, but we'll be back as always. And uh before we get into today's movie, Jonathan, have you seen anything good recently?
SPEAKER_01Um not a ton, actually, but I I mentioned last time, I think, that I've been spending some time with John Houston's The Dead, and I watched a kind of making of documentary about it. That was quite a treat, and I've been really kind of ruminating on that film because I I have to write about it. It's been a real pleasure. That movie is is a special film.
SPEAKER_00I need to check this movie out. I had not seen it actually, so I need to make it put it on my list of things to watch. I uh this this weekend I watched uh this is a little embarrassing to say, but uh to put it out there. I'll I'll be honest with all of you. Saw my first Ingmar Bergman film. Never seen one before. Uh, which is odd because, you know, a big Woody Allen fan. He loves Ingmar Bergman, but I never got into seeing one. Saw the Seventh Seal, um, and eh, not my bag. I gotta say it again, to be honest. I just feel like I was not in the right headspace to watch a lot of my mind, and that's a movie that you really need to be paying attention to. So I'm gonna go see it again. I mean, very beautiful film, but um uh is that one of your favorites uh for Bergman?
SPEAKER_01Well, I have two reactions to what you just said. One is always, you know, the the movie you like is the movie you like. Don't let anybody tell you to eat your vegetables. I mean, if you're not moved by a film, you're not you're not moved by a film. But my other reaction is, my stock line is, you know, if Igmar Bergman were alive today, he'd be a god who walks among us. Uh you know, he's one of, you know, this just monumentally towering figures in the history of cinema. That said, I don't think I'd put Seventh Seal in my T10 uh of Ingmar Bergman's. But that said, if he didn't make the other ten, it would probably be, you know, among my list of the greatest movies ever made. So it's it's tricky. It's more that I'm so in awe of so many of the films that he's made. If I really had to urge people to see one Ingmar Bergman film, it would probably be the long-form version of Scenes from a Marriage, which is a 70s movie, by the way, so maybe we'll get around to that one day. But I should mention um not what we call the feel-good movie. That's a long one, too, isn't it? It's like three hours long. Yeah, well, it's in five or six parts if you do the long-form version. They they it was originally shown on Swedish television. It actually, they say, had a cultural effect on marriage in Sweden. Uh in fact, it was referenced in Tom Wolfe's uh famous essay on the Me Generation and how it affected marriages in the U.S., but it was then condensed into a long feature-laid film when it showed kind of in theaters. But you can access the version of it that is five or six episodes, and I think that that is, as is often the case with Bergman's films that are released this way, the the much better version. That's similarly true with Fanny and Alexander, with the long form version, is is more appealing to me.
SPEAKER_00Um Well, it's interesting that you bring up marriage because that's a good segue for today's film, because I'm not sure there's a movie that's ever been made that has a more not ever, but certainly an up there as far as um dysteptic is it the word dysteptic views on on marriage. Would you say that uh that's an accurate description of this movie?
SPEAKER_01Well, again, I think it's this is a pretty uh tough movie that we're about to talk about with regards to marriage, but you know, there are a half dozen Bergman films that often also kind of kind of cast a jaundiced eye on male-female relations.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, yeah. And again, good segue to talk about today's movie, Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf? This movie was made in 1966. It will talk about why we are discussing a non-70s film and a 70s film podcast briefly. Before I get into that, let me just say who's in it, what's it about? Directed by Mike Nichols, I believe his first feature film, actually. Screenplay is by Ernest Lehman, based on a play by Edward Aldi of the same name. Uh cinematography by Haskell Wexler, edited by Sam O'Steam, music by Alex North, and it stars Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton, George Siegel, and Sandy Dennis. It's the only four actors that are credited in this film. It was nominated for a record 13 Academy Awards. Every Academy Award for which it was eligible, it was nominated for. Also, all four named actors were nominated in the best acting categories. It won, I believe it was five Oscars. Best actress, Elizabeth Taylor, Best Sport Actress, Andy Dennis, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, and Best Costume Design. It is number 67 on the AFI list of greatest American movies. And what is it about? I always want to pass this along. This is really fun. So I watched this movie last week with my mother, actually, because she loves this film. We went to see it at the Paris Theater in New York, but then I wanted to watch it again. So I went on Amazon and I streamed it. And here is a description on Amazon of this movie. A professor and his wife carry on in front of guests. That is the entire description of the movie. I prefer to say a middle-aged couple, George and Martha, invite a younger couple over afternoon drinking. And Chaos and Sues. Because that is the tagline of every one of the movies we do these days. But I just love the description. Carry on in front of guests, which is not inaccurate, by the way, but there's a little more going on than just that. It sounds like they've outsourced it to AI. It does seem that way. Yeah, that was my impression as well. Uh okay, so we've come to that point in the podcast, Jonathan. Here we go. Everyone get ready. Fast your seat belts. Jonathan, who's afraid of Virginia Wolf? Is this a good movie? Is this a bad movie? Or is this a great movie?
SPEAKER_01Well, I can give a straight answer this time, but I will still qualify my answer. It is a great movie, but it is also, I want to say, watershed movie, but it's not quite right. It's like the the floodgates open after this movie, and it is with a couple of other movies really responsible for that. So I don't know if somewhere between watershed and opening the floodgates, I I want a single English language word to capture that this is a great movie, but it is it is probably even more important as a significant moment in American movie history.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, and i it it it is again, we mentioned earlier, based on a play uh by Edward Albee that was itself groundbreaking uh when it came out in 1962, was a huge hit uh on Broadway and a huge hit because it really pushed the boundaries of what was possible in American theater in the early 60s. And um, to be clear, we have done four movies that were not released in 1970, one more recently, one bad after another, and three uh two three others now, including today. Uh Bob and Cat Ted and Carol and Alice. That was released, though, like right before 1970. So it's gonna be 70. Close enough. Close enough. Uh Point Blank, and now this movie. Now, this movie, in a way, is um sort of similar to Point Blank, in that uh it pushed the envelope. So I'm gonna ask you the question I think that may be on people's minds right now as to why we're doing this. Why are we doing this? Why is this movie being discussed in a 70s movie podcast?
SPEAKER_01Well, again, it's because of its significance in creating the space for the opportunity for the new Hollywood in the 70s film that that this podcast is really focused on and which we care so much about. I'm gonna get a little professory here, so some of you might want to fast forward. Professor, but Hollywood was ruled from 1934, essentially to 1966, by the Production Code Administration, uh uh originally known as the Hayes Code, but Hayes really didn't care about anything. In 1934, so when things got, you know, he he he made these rules in 1930. Things got really serious in 1934 when this very nasty man named Joseph Breen took over the Production Code Authority, and it it was Hollywood's internal censorship system of the movies. Uh uh from cradle to grave, from pre-production to post-production. And his successor, uh his hand-picked successor, Gordon Sherlock, I think, took over the reins in 1953. Things loosen up slightly uh in the 1950s because they're anxious about television and declining audiences and foreign films, uh, but not really fundamentally changed the censorship codes that Hollywood imposed upon itself and had the ability to do so because it was both a horizontal and a vertical monopoly. I won't go into that at all. You'll all thank me for not coming into that later. But then Mr. Sherlock Upson dies. And what happens is Hollywood does what it often did, which it reached for a Hollywood power broker to take over at the head of the MPAA, the Motion Picture Association of America. And that man was, as Robin Williams once described him, a man you've never heard of but have to listen to anyway. Uh Jack Boom Boom Valente, a special assistant to President Lyndon Johnson. And you know, Jack Valente may not be one of my favorite people, and he's kind of a PR man, but he did not fancy himself a censor. And so he takes over the PCA and does not want to be the person who says, you may do this, you may not do this. He was, you know, in favor of a more kind of adult and responsible screen. And so as he's entering his office, this property is kicking around, and it would not have been releasable under the code. And in fact, Valente sat down with the crew who looked over these things and line by line, scene by scene, word by word, negotiated, navigated, getting this movie through the production code administration. And so it says things that don't sound horrible to our ears today, like screw you, or even more ghastly, hump the hostess, phrases that could not have possibly been uttered in an American film previously. Trevor Burrus, Jr. Also, also, goddamn it. And they would believe that. I don't remember monkey nipples. It just flew right by. I thought he says that at one point. He says that's anything's possible. Yes. But it was a a diplomatic coup on his part, and it was the right choice. You know, when you want to win a political battle, you choose the right case to bring to the Supreme Court, right? So this is a Tony-winning prestigious play, and so it has that gravitas behind it. He gets it through, and really it's 1966, and the release of Virginia Woolf and the release through MGM of Blow Up, Antonioni's Blow Up, London-based production, which had kind of glimpses of nudity and all kinds of mod uh and fancy things going on. Those two films really kind of pushed down the creaking floorboards of the PCA. And then we had films in 67 that were transitional, like Point Blank that we talked about partially for that reason. Point Blank's a great, great movie, but it also was these series of 1967 films that wouldn't have been possible even in 1965. The Graduate being another example, seems tame today by our standards. The subject matter would have been absolutely forbidden. And then in 68, Valente shepherds through the rating system that we're now somewhat familiar with today, with the G and the PG and the Rs and what have you. And so this movie is not just a great movie, but it is also the kind of test case that brought forth the more modern cinema of the new Hollywood End of the 70s film.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Ross Powell I also want to give a shout out to Bonnie and Clyde, who came out in 67, which first depiction of violence was very much ahead of the curve. Trevor Burrus, Jr. Exactly. That is exactly right.
SPEAKER_01It was remiss of me not to say that.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, no, no, no worries. This movie um uh pushes the envelope both in some of the language, but really the subject matter of this film. Um this is a movie that is deals with some really mature themes and some really difficult themes. This is a hard movie. Um but I want to get to something that you and I debated a little bit before we got on the on on the air to talk about this, um, which I have a hard time answering this question, but I'm curious for your take on this. What is this movie about?
SPEAKER_01So uh you know, I liked some of your answers. You you you wrote to me. We were exchanging messages about this, and and this all sounded right. I mean, I you mentioned illusion versus reality. I think that that's a really important part of the film, although maybe more subtext than text, but I think if you go to the source material, and this is a very faithful adaptation of the Albi play. Yeah, it's very faithful. You know, and and in in plays, the playwright, you know, is is indeed the author, and you know, uh Al Albi definitely stresses that notion of allusion versus reality in his own speaking about the play. But you also, you know, talked about unrealized expectations and ambitions. I think that's definitely there. So, you know, and then you also mentioned uh in this note the emptiness of the American dream. I mean, I'm just nodding along here. I think you were really n I I was I didn't have a quick answer for what this movie is about, but you you sent me these these notions about what the movie was about. And I said, yeah, that's what the movie is about.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, so basically what's happening is you're just stealing my take right now.
SPEAKER_01But I'm giving you full credit in the football.
SPEAKER_00No, that's true. You are but I think it's the first time ever you've stolen a take from me. So I really this is a this is a very proud moment for me, actually. Very proud. Uh well let me do one more.
SPEAKER_01And you know, um this is more obvious, but you know, and it's it's a pretty hard look at the institution of marriage.
SPEAKER_00Yeah. That's the part I think that is the most um, you know, sort of controversial about this movie. Because you have two characters here, George and Martha, played by Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, who um do not appear to have the happiest marriage in the world. And the m the film opens with them coming home from a night of heavy drinking, it appears. Um, and you know, you have this sort of back and forth with each other where where Elizabeth Taylor is really kind of just poking at Richard Burton, and he is just kind of taking it. And as the evening goes along, the barbs and the attacks and the cruelty become even more intense. And in a sense, they're playing for this audience of this other couple who they invite over to join them at their at their house, played by George Siegel and uh Sandy Dennis, that is Nick and Honey. Um and so it's a it's a dispiriting take on their marriage, but as the film goes along, it's also a pretty dispiriting take on Nick and Honey's marriage as well. Yes. And there's an argument to be made that they actually have a worse marriage than George and Martha, which is really saying something.
SPEAKER_01Um I think more. More interestingly, if you wanted to go that way, you could almost say that George and Martha might have been a little bit like them when they were first starting. I mean, George was probably promising when he was first hired. You know, I'm I'm a professor, and this is uh this is a real college gossipy type movie. You know, he's a he is, as John Kenneth Galbraith des described him, a professor who never published. You know, she's the daughter of the president of the college, and when they met, he was probably promising, and and she was a great catch. And there, you know, Taylor Taylor's character, Martha, gives a soliloquy about how her vision for the trajectory of his career uh and his role in the college, which was unfulfilled, and the marriage kind of settled into this sustainable and understood warfare between the two of them. But then we have this other couple enter the room, and in in many ways you can imagine them as being somewhat parallel to the older couple. Uh in fact, uh Sandy Dennis's character, I think, also comes from a background of of family wealth, you know, not a university background, but nevertheless, she's you you become increasingly uh suspicious of of, or at least I do, of George Siegel's character and his ambitions. And so you know, what did he see in in in Sandy Dennis? You know, I'm sure he he was fond of her, but it probably didn't hurt that she came from from a wealthy family, and similarly with also Martha.
SPEAKER_00She was pregnant. That's why he says he married her. Although she wasn't pregnant. She had a hysterical pregnancy. Exactly. Which may not be a thing, medically speaking, by the way. I don't know that it really is a thing. Yeah. I want to get into look, we're gonna get there's there's a lot of stuff to get into, particularly in relation to the the child, the son, the imaginary son of George and Martha. Um but before I I want to get into that, I'm I just want to say, like, I think this is also a movie that is not um it's like an enigma wrapped in a mystery. Because bits of information are dribbled out to you, and a lot of that information does not become clear until later in the film. The thing with the son, the child. Yes. It is not clear until really the last three minutes of the movie the sun never actually existed. I mean, you suspect it, but it's not really it's not completely made clear and it's made clear in a very sort of matter-of-fact way, this child did not exist. Right. There's a story that and we'll we'll get to this, that Burton tells about a classmate of his who killed his mother by accident and then killed his father, which is told in different ways in the movie to suggest that maybe that's actually an autobiographical story. And and this is I think a key theme movie. A lot of question of what is real and what is illusion between these characters. And this is a movie that kind of keeps you guessing the whole way. And I think it it's a I I don't know, it's funny. I I don't think you can watch the movie one time and understand it. I really I mean, I've seen the movie about three or four times now. And I think on the third watch, I really came to understand some of this movie better because as I said, it doesn't really reveal itself in a linear way or even in a and and I know this is sort of this is kind of subway elemental to plays. It's n it it does, it's just not it's not a movie that's easy to get your heart to get your arms around. It it it takes a lot of effort to understand exactly what's happening and understand the interplay between George and Martha.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Ross Powell Well, I have less experience with plays than I do with movies, obviously, but my my senses from the ones I've seen, the good ones, is that you do have this layered uh approach, right? Where in Act One you're presented with a story and it's uh operating at the level of kind of superficial text, and as the play continues, you start to understand slowly what the real themes of the play are about, and then there's you know a big confrontation at the end, and then everybody's sad.
SPEAKER_00Right. That's that's exactly. Which is what happens in this movie also. Yeah. And I think what's interesting about this obviously is a play. It feels like a play, but it has a real cinematic feel to it also. And I I give Mike Nichols a lot of credit for how he now Mike Nichols' experience was part of a comedy team with Elaine May back, I think the 50s, if I remember correctly.
SPEAKER_01Then he was late 50s, early 60s, Nichols and May. This is this is revolutionary stuff.
SPEAKER_00Right. And then he becomes a director on Broadway. He directs plays. Uh, he's still in his 20s at this point when he he signs up to direct this film. Um so this is his first feature film. Uh I think it's a brilliantly directed film because he really does take what is a play, uh what you know, really is a bunch of people sitting around in a room talking, and he brings a cinematic quality to it in some of the close-ups that he uses. I mean, I I love at the end of the movie when he he goes in and out of focus with the camera, uh, which is which at a point when Elizabeth Taylor is on uh on the tightrope between illusion and reality. I mean, he does a lot of interesting stuff. And then some of the stuff is a little showy at times, but I think I think it generally works pretty well. One thing he does uh particularly is he he has these sort of wide shots where I'll have two people talking and then someone in the background. He has like Taylor is hitting on George Siegel, and you have Bert in the background watching them. And one thing I noticed in the last viewing is just there's often shots, wide shots of the four of them, and just the looks on Siegel's face, how how much he transmits just by his discomfort with the situation that he's in. It's really wonderfully done, and I think it's really, really effective. Again, because a play is different than a movie. You really have to focus on the actors' faces. You have to get close ups, you have to really see more detail in what they're doing with their eyes and with their mouth and with their heads, and you get that in this while also not losing the the elements of this that that make for great theater or make for a great play.
SPEAKER_01So I want to agree with you completely, but in a qualified way. Because I think Because I think that Nichols is uh an excellent director and he would go on to be an even better director, and I think that his theatrical training really helped him work closely with actors. Sometimes when we're talking about movies, we forget about how important it is that the director is not is w not just making images, but working closely with the performers on their characters and things like that. And I think you're absolutely right to call attention to many of his essentially deep focused compositions in the frame, where you have action in the foreground and the background, and that's all there. But I think this movie and Nichols owe a tremendous amount to the cinematographer Haskell Wexler, whose work here is absolutely spectacular. And also Nichols is a first-time movie director, and first-time movie directors tend to really need a good DP to help them just with the mechanics of shooting of what they can and cannot do. So many directors have talked about, you know, when they were starting out, how much they learned from their more experienced DPs. Sometimes that could be a condescending relationship, you know, ah, punk, I know much more about this than you. But I think that if you look at this movie, it is, you know, Wexler's lighting is spectacular. I think about early, maybe in the first third of the film, Burton wanders off and goes into a closet and there's a swinging light bulb there. It's the shadows are across his face. That's, I think, all Wexler. And then at the end of the movie, when as dawn breaks, the change in the lighting again, I think that's Wexler. But just simple things that Nichols has talked about, about how Wexler told him what was possible to do and not do with where the camera was and where the lighting was. And we also want to point out, as you know, we're good new Hollywood rebels here, that this film is shot in black and white, which is not what Warner Brothers wanted. It's not what Jack Warner wanted. And Warner said to Nichols, we're going to shoot this in color. And Nichols said, you know, well, have a great movie. You know, I'm I'm I'm I'm not doing that. And and he really stood his ground. And part of the reason why Wexler got the job is that uh an earlier cinematographer mused about the idea of of shooting in color, and you know, he was promptly let go. And so he quickly got shit-ganned. Yeah, that's right, exactly. So this I think if you're talking about how well made a movie this is, I would not minimize Nichols' enormous contributions. He's the director, uh, and again, worked closely with the actor and those deep focus frame compositions. But I think Wexler is is virtually irreplaceable as a participant in creating in this the look of this film, which is which is so important.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, you know, you bring up the black and white part of it, and which I I it's interesting because I think this movie works uh it's uh look, it's always like you you know what you know, you know what you see. So we see it's black and white, so we can't imagine it in color. But I can't imagine this movie in color. It just feels like a black and white movie. The black and white, I think it not only gives the the movie sort of an austere quality, um, but thematically it seems more t more appropriate to to what the movie's trying to say and what it was trying to do. I don't know. Maybe that maybe again, that might just be because I see it in black and white, I don't see it in color. But I that's my sense of it.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, it's hard to say in retrospect. As you said, the movie you know is the movie you know, but this this does seem to me, and it did seem to the participants to be, you know, a black and white movie. Obviously, the stars had to be on board with that. I mean, Elizabeth Taylor is an extremely powerful force behind this production, and if she wanted it in color, you know, that the movie probably would have been in color, just not with Mike Nichols. Uh so so the actors are behind it. And the use of the contrast of lighting is important for what they were trying to do here, and I think that that works better in black and white than in color. Black and white is fading at this time in film usage because of television, but nevertheless, it's still not shocking that the film w was made in black and white. And uh as as Orson Wells has told us, uh and he's the one who you know told Bogdanovich to shoot Last Picture Show in black and white, black and white is more of an actor's medium. Uh it it really he thought actors did better, looked better, and were more focused on in a black and white setting than in a color setting. And I think that because what we have here, you know, is what they would call a four-hander, you know, I guess with these four characters that that's what the play is about. To kind of focus on the characters, you know. If we're going to follow the Wells doctrine, then it would it would work, black and white would work for that type of production.
SPEAKER_00So you bring up the actors. Let's talk about that. Because this is to me look, we can talk about this movie thematically about. For me, this movie is about the performances, the acting performances. Aaron Powell, which is a kind of an odd thing to say because you judge a movie really by you know, what is the movie saying to you? What the movie tells what is what is the what what is happening in the movie? What's this what's the story? What's the character development? But what entrances me about this movie, why I love it so much, is because of the performances. Now we're gonna take turns here because each of us have our preferred favorites, right? Now I have said before on this podcast that I think Elizabeth Taylor's performance in this film is one of the best acting performances by a woman that I've ever seen. And I stand by that comment after watching watched it now twice in the past week. She is extraordinary. She is, and I I wrote down all the adjuvants I thought of when I was when I was thinking of this: raw, vulnerable, emotional, sexual, erotic. Um she is a live wire. She's like an a uh like an electric eel. Like it's just crackling off the screen. And she's also, by the way, a hot mess, the hottest of hot messes. And I'm not somebody who loves a really big scenery-eating performance, right? So I, you know, uh going back to what I loved from last year, I I talk at great length, which I love Wagner Mora and Secret Agent, in part because I think it's such an internalized performance and it's so restrained, and I think there's such power in in actors who can do can pull off a performance like that. This is a big, broad performance, but it completely works for me. I think because she sells it, but because also she brings this, like I said, this rawness and this vulnerability. I mean, I at the points of this movie I watch in awe of how she got to a place as an actress that she could better bring out the emotion that she brings out. I just think it's it just it's it's amazing. There's so many little things that she does well. I love, I mean, the opening of this movie. The whole first act is, by the way, uh just incredible. And it just sets the stage so beautifully for what we're gonna see. But the way she interacts with George, the way she's eating fried chicken in the kitchen. I love the way she cleans up their a bedroom by throwing clothes under the under the sheets. And like she's uh she's a mess of a person, but you just you completely feel this character and feel her her trauma, you feel her vulnerability, you feel that she's like constantly like on edge and she's and she's you know uh ready to explode any second. I mean, I just I don't know. It just for me it had it just hit me in that place where I just was sort of blown away by it. Um and I want to say something about about her that I think is important. In 1966, there was no bigger star in the world than Elizabeth Taylor. I mean, she was the biggest star. She was beautiful. She was scandal-rid, right? This woman who's, I think her second husband, or maybe her third, I came over second or third, died in a plane crash. Uh uh Todd, Richard Todd, I think his name was, right? And then she begins having an affair with uh was it is it Eddie Fisher? Eddie Fisher. Fisher, sure. Eddis. Carrie Fisher's dad, who leaves his wife, Debbie Reynolds, and his daughter, Carrie Fisher, to to get together to shack up with Elizabeth Taylor. He was actually Richard Todd's best friend. Then they're together, then she does Cleopatra, begins this toward affair with Richard Burton, leaves, they both leave their spouses, they get married, they get divorced, they get married again. I mean, this is like sh is, I mean, all the gossip page. I think of the biggest actress in the world today and like multiply it by 10. That's how big of an actress she was. And and and she was also known as like this incredibly beautiful woman, and she is a beautiful woman. And in this in this movie, she gained 30 pounds as performance. She has a face prosthetic, she's got a wig on. I think she is still gorgeous in this movie. I mean, I doesn't have I mean, because she's supposed to be a I think a 50-year-old woman. She's 34 in real life when she made this movie.
SPEAKER_01She wouldn't play 50. I think they they knocked it down into the mid-40s or something. Trevor Burrus, Jr. It was a point of honor with her because the character is supposed to be a little older, but she said she'd only go so far, but no farther.
SPEAKER_00But she does not look 34 in the slightest. No. No. So I think she is amazing in this movie. Now, I have waxed poetic about Blizzard Taylor.
SPEAKER_01Please talk about Richard Burton, if you would. Trevor Burrus, Jr.: I'm happy to talk about Richard Burton, but I want to make two quick observations about Elizabeth Taylor, actually, one about Taylor and one about something you mentioned. I also really liked the way she was tidying the bedroom or tidy, you know, in in in air quotes, tidying the bedroom when they were getting ready for the guests. But then, if you watch the movie more than once, although my traveling companion noticed this immediately, exactly why is she tidying the bedroom when they're expecting these resistance? And actually, as we find out, well, she had good reason to. It's a very nice little piece of business that is just a lot of people. That's a great point. And as for Taylor's performance, again, I agree with you completely, but in a qualified way. I mean, the the performance is bravora. Uh the range that she shows is extraordinary. I have no criticism of it, but you know, just for me, it's just too big. It it is acting with a capital A.
SPEAKER_00So so so it's funny you say this because I I I I can totally agree with you. It is big. And I think often a big forms like that just lends itself to caricature. And I d I didn't feel that way about it. I thought it complete I I thought it worked completely. I thought it was befitting for the character. And I I don't know, it didn't bother me. But I I I understand how people can have that criticism. I or not criticism, but that sort of note about it. Yes.
SPEAKER_01And so but for me, that's what possibly and again, may yeah, maybe it does fit the character accurately. But it was there were times when you know I could I would have preferred if she took it down at least a notch. I think that's fair.
SPEAKER_00I guess it's totally fair. To me, it's a good with the bad.
SPEAKER_01But I think it's a totally fair comment. But yeah, sorry. Trevor Burrus, Jr.: But a great performance. I mean, my you know my guess is it's probably her greatest performance. I don't have you know her entire Ouvre at my mental disposal, but I'm gonna lay that out there as as as possibly uh her greatest performance. And whereas I am in utter awe of Richard Burton's performance in this film, I'm also an enormous admirer of Burton, again with a qualification. I mean, Burton, who was a a raging alcoholic, uh, squandered his talent. Uh and so he never really fully fulfilled his potential. I mean, some of our listeners may not really know who Richard Burton was, but some of our listeners who even know who Richard Burton was may not be aware that he was seen as the heir of Olivier, you know, on the British stage, right? That that there was Olivier and that he was going to be the next Olivier, and you know, this was a very tight community, and the London Theater is something that takes itself very seriously. He was directed, you know, by John Gielgood in various productions. He was being groomed in the in the proper sense of the word to to be the next great British actor, and he had a lot of triumphs on the stage, and then he went into films. And only in a handful of films can you see his talent really soar. And some of that takes place right here in this period. I think it's 64 is John Houston's Night of the Iguana, 65 is Martin Ritz, the spy who came in from the cold, which is probably my favorite Burden performance. Trevor Burrus, Jr. Yeah, I agree, actually.
SPEAKER_00Well, this this or that one. And then this one. Either one of these two. Right. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01And then you have this one, but it's 64, 65, 66. I don't think he ever approaches that level of greatness in the rest of his career. He does an interesting little picture called uh I think it's the Assassination of Trotsky. He plays Trotsky. It's a Joseph Losey picture from 1972. And he's not bad in this utterly ridiculous 1978 thriller called The Wild Geese in the United States. Oh, yeah, sure. But he's he's he's pretty good in it. But again, he knows that was a paycheck. And he took a lot of big paychecks, and he and he drank a lot of alcohol. And and so on the one hand oh, and let me continue to wax poetic about Richard Burton, the man. He was a very smart and perceptive and well-read man. His diaries have been published. I I read them with enormous pleasure and interest. He had a good eye for people, and he affiliated with very interesting people. I think he once got into a kind of sonnet reciting contest with Senator Robert F. Kennedy. But you know, this is what would be. Actually, I did read that once. Yes, I did read that. Trevor Burrus, Jr. This is a kind of little tidbit that would pop up in the diaries. Oh, and then, you know, you know, Bobby came by and we did this or we did that. But in a serious way, taking the measure of people and speaking about literature that he had, you know, been engaged in and making very perceptive observations about people. And so it's it's disappointing that he did not fulfill his potential. But this movie would be an example in which he showed why, in my view, he was one of the great actors of his generation. And if I had to kind of pick a spot, I mean maybe it's obvious, maybe everybody would pick this spot, but it's his it's his storytelling outside by the tree in which he first tells the story of or which is a true or not true story. I think it's a true story of of his kind of what, but of who? Of him or somebody else? Aaron Ross Powell, no, I think I I believe the story as he tells it, that it is about another person. And the reason why is because if he's lying, he's too good a liar, right? It almost would transcend the character. I think this is a I think that it's a real thing that happened to him. And you know, he he wanted to write it up as a as a novel, and that that didn't work out for him. But it is riveting. It is it is I mean, if you want to go take my complaint uh about big A acting, he doesn't go big, but the soliloquy here in which he tells this story is so good and you are so wrapped up in it that maybe it's almost too good that you almost kind of step outside the film as you are in awe of the performance. I don't know.
SPEAKER_00That's really interesting that you said that because I kind of had that thought that it was almost too good and too newsflash, momentous moment happening, important monologue happening in the movie. Like it almost has that quality to it that is so well delivered and such a long monologue that you it almost just feels a little calculated, which is really an unfair criticism because it's shit. It's a great scene, right? Like who cares? But live in the moment of what you just said.
SPEAKER_01Live in the moment, it takes my breath away. I'm just I'm so locked into it.
SPEAKER_00So I heard a great story about that that scene that when they shot it, uh, apparently the camera was had the wrong setting. And so it was completely overexposed. And so the next day, I guess Haskell Wexler goes to Nichols and says we have to reshoot that. It's it's a it's let's it's all it's completely screwed up. And Nichols is like, not a chance. There's no way you can have performance at a burden twice. So you find a way to fix it. And if you watch it, it's supposed to be in the middle of the night. It looks like it could be the middle of the afternoon a little bit. It's very lit. It is, that is true. And so that's what's going on there. Um so I I look, I agree with you. I think he is uh I this I think one of the things that happened the first time I saw it is that because Taylor is so dominating and she's eating so much scenery that I think you kind of tend to, I don't know, like not ignore Burton, but you take it for granted. And this this the last viewing I I uh when I saw in the theater, I really paid attention to what he was doing. And he brings, I mean, such an extraordinary performance, but there's like almost a m a malevolence to his character. Like a like it he's like he's enjoying being a nasty son of a bitch, because he is at the end of the movie a nasty son of a bitch. Like the first third of the movie, he's almost like a cuckold, right? I mean he is right, he's this beaten-down man. But the second part Yeah, he is beaten down. No, it's second part. Oh yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, it that's actually a fair it's actually a fair description. Um second part, he kind of pushes back a little bit, and the third part, of course, that's when he kind of the the the the pendulum swings, and he's the dominant one in the relationship at the end of the movie. Um So I I agree with you. I think he's amazing. Now I want to talk a little bit about also George Siegel and Sandy Dennis. I you know, they I always felt bad for them because it's like going up against Ollie and Fraser, right? Like you're the on they're the undercard, and Ollie and Frasier are like the the the top billing. Like it's really unfair to them to have to be on the same uh uh screen with these two heavyweights, but I think they more than hold their own. And I have to say, like, George Siegel, who I always think of as a comedic actor first and foremost, um is just wonderful in this movie. I mean, he really does I I meant uh one thing I like that he does a lot is that I think I mentioned this earlier, like the what he tell he does a lot with his face, a lot with his eyes, a lot of communicating how uncomfortable the situation is. But also the more you get to see him, the m the less you like him. Like you really unpeel the layers of who he is as a character. And you realize, especially with this wonderful scene with him and Burton, really great scene with the two of them outside, right, by during the monologue.
SPEAKER_02Yes.
SPEAKER_00Where he talks about how his ambition and his plan is to, as he puts it, plow pertinent uh wives, uh, including Elizabeth Taylor. Um so I I I think he brings a lot to the performance, actually, a lot to the a lot to the movie.
SPEAKER_01I think once again, maybe we're in too much agreement here in that yes, it's it's so impressive that you could walk into the ring with with these heavyweight champions and and hold your own. Uh and so both of those. I think both actors are do that, you know. I think Siegel's performance is especially noteworthy. But it's also I think m noteworthy because of the layers that you describe. But something about George Siegel, he walks into a room and he's kind of a likable guy. Yeah, he's a likable guy. Yeah. And so the more you watch the movie, or the as the more as the movie unfolds, it his ambition, you know, and his maybe even duplicity or or the layers of what he You know, what are they doing there? They've been to this, you know, party that ended very late at night, and then they're heading over to to to have, you know, after hours of the Trevor Burrus, Jr. It's 2.30 in the morning when they um when they go to their house. Trevor Burrus, Jr. And and he's there solely because she's the daughter of the president, uh I think. And and if it was you know, if if I got that invitation, you know, I don't think I would even I like to think of myself as someone who wouldn't go even to the house of the daughter of the president. But that's the only thing that's getting anybody over to the after drinks, you know, at at 2.30 in the morning after a long night out at a boring faculty mixer.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Ross Powell And as Liz Taylor gets progressive I mean, she's drunk when the movie starts, she's drunk. I mean, first of all, just the amount of drinking these characters do is if I did if I drank that much, I would I would die. Yes. Any one act. Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. But she is flirting with him. She does I mean, and he responds accordingly. I mean, he is in and right in front of his wife. He's not hiding it from her. And you don't get a real sense he loves his wife, uh Sandy Dennis. You feel like he married her. You know, you don't get a sense that they love each other at all, really. I mean, I don't get the sense from her as well. She's proud of him. He's yeah, he's so successful at a young age, but you don't get the sense she really cares about him. And there's a real question there of whether or not she manipulated him into getting married by claiming that she was pregnant. And I am all I was trying to do something else too. She throws up a lot in this movie. She I which makes me think about you though a lot when you're pregnant. Like, was she did she get pregnant and have an abortion? Did she get pregnant and was she pregnant again here? And was she going to find some way to deal with it? Like she says at one point in the movie, like, I don't want to have a child, I'm afraid to have a child. You get the impression that she might have been pregnant and she did everything she could to avoid being pregnant. Um although at the end of the film, she says she wants to have a child, which I think the I think it's the brandy talking when she says that. But she does a lot of wonderful stuff as well. She does a wonderful dance in the roadhouse scene that she does, and there's a great moment when he's ta you can see Siegel talking about her and she's on the stairs, and you see her. I love the way she did this, and you can see he she hears him talking about her, and you can see the anxiety and and the look of concern on her face, but then she gets her face in a place where she's the presentable housewife and she goes down the stairs. And it's a wonderful little little bit of as you would say, little piece of business where you can see the the truth behind the facade that she's carrying around with her. Um and there's a lot of this movie. I mean, she actually opens up because I think of the brandy, I think that sh there's a lot going underneath her character that you see at various points come out in the film. Um and maybe not voluntarily in her case.
SPEAKER_01I think she Has the most challenging performance because I don't know if she's at least as inherently interesting as the other three. Right. But she also has is is handed a series of moments where she herself goes over the top a little bit. And again, that's not the actor's choice, I would assume, in this context, but that's what she was told to do. But I do want to give a a shout-out to the actor. I think she's she's wonderful. She's uh you know, was in Altman's That Cold Day in the Park. She was also in Altman's Come Back to the Five and Dime, Jimmy Dean, Jimmy Dean, a terrific little movie that many people haven't seen. And I thought she was even marvelous in in that obscure Woody Allen movie I often go on and on about another woman, in which she has a small supporting role, which is really uh well done. Um she's a she's an actor who has many gifts, and and it's nice to see her here in in this earlier role, but I do think of the four of them, she does hold my attention the least of them.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, I d I don't think that's her fault. I think it's just the nature of the character. But she's responsible in my favorite lines of the entire movie, which is when something very uncomfortable happens and she says she's I have to go powder my nose. Yes. And Burton says uh to Martha, Would you show her where we keep the euphemism? Yes. Yeah. Um it's a great line. And that's by the way, a kind of the moment in the film where I think the film kind of turns. I mean, it's interesting, like uh uh this movie. I mean, do you think this movie is a comedy? I mean, there is a lot of comedic elements to at least the first act of the movie, but I don't Well, let me tell a funny story. Uh actually, you answer the question, and I have a good story about this, but go ahead. Go ahead. I don't think it's a comedy, but I think it's supposed to often be funny. Okay, so so this was our weird experience I had meeting this movie this week. I I I wanted to pass this along. Went to the Paris Theater, it was a late night, it was like a Wednesday night, like 9 45, a showing. Get to the theater, and there are these people sitting around us, and they um I don't know if they'd been to a movie before. Maybe it's like something about like people now don't go to movies anymore. They just they they they watch at TV on streaming, so they don't really understand how to act in a movie theater. But the first like third of the movie, people would like literally laughed at every single thing that happened. And I'm sitting here and I'm like, you know, guys, this is not a comedy. Like, what are you doing? There's a guy in front of me, he was violently convulsing in laughter. Like, what I was like, what is happening? To the point where we actually had to move our seats to get away from them because it was just driving us crazy. And then around the point when the first big blowout and Burton like walks out the door, all of a sudden the laughter just ends. And I really kind of thought that people came to this movie thinking, oh, this is a comedy, I'm supposed to laugh. And then about a third of the way through, they're like, oh no, this is not a comedy. Wait a minute. This is not what I was expecting at all. Um, so it is interesting. Like, I think I think the first third plays kind of light and it's a wonderful introduction to the characters, but I think you're right. It's it's the second, the the second second and third act, not comedic, especially the third act, which I think is incredibly intense and heavy. Um I don't know if you want to get to that point yet. I mean, I guess actually before that, I gotta say, like the everything up to the the scene where uh they're outside on the on the swing and you know they come back inside and they drive into this roadhouse. The roadhouse scene is not in the play, I believe. Right. Um and I have to say it's the one uh section of the movie that I didn't really care for. I just didn't think it worked. I thought it was too over the top. And I like some I like, I mean, look, the the conversation between Burton and Taylor in the parking lot is incredible acting. It reminded me, you know what it reminded me of, actually, oddly enough? You ever see a you watch the Sopranos, I'm sure, right? Yes. There's a one there's I think it's the thing called White Caps, the episode when Carmella confronts Tony about his his his um philandering in the basement. And the Yeah, yeah. No, it's a it's a yeah, that's new house they're at. Yeah. And they like go at each they go at each other in a way that is I I it's like almost it's almost uncomfortable to watch.
SPEAKER_01Have we not talked about I don't have we never talked about this? I think that is the single greatest scene in the history of the Sopranos. Do you really? I do. Wow. When they were having that fight, I remember thinking to myself after the fight was over that I felt like I had just seen a husband and a wife having a fight. And that at no moment did I not think that was really happening right in front of my eyes. Yeah. And I was blown away by their the ability for them to take me to that place.
SPEAKER_00100%. I I I I actually agree with everything you just said. I to me it's I mean, there's so many things in the sopranos that stand out. There's so many great scenes and great moments, but that scene for pure acting ability, for pure, just I mean, discomfort isn't even the right word, just for for the vulnerability and the rawness of it. Oh my god, there's nothing else like it. And it and I thought about that scene when I watched the two of them fighting outside of the roadhouse. But everything before that, I don't know. It doesn't really work for me as well. Like when they're when George Siegel and Liv Hill are dancing. I I just didn't have the it didn't, I don't know, it didn't work for me, but I'm curious what you think about that. I again have a qualified agreement with you.
SPEAKER_01I don't think it's good. I like it. I don't think it's my favorite part of the movie, but it was I think it's where the filmmakers lost their nerve a little bit because the scene, as I understand it, is in the play. They just start to put on records and dance in the house. And filmmakers, when they're filming plays, get so anxious about opening it up. We've got to open it up. And so they get us out of the house and they go to the roadhouse, and so that seemed very artificial to me. Not that it didn't seem artificial, artificial, but uh I'm sitting there saying to myself, oh, they really wanted to open it up, and so they kind of lost me a little bit. But so I think the scene, you know, was the author's intention. That is Albi's intention, that there must have been things in the scene that were important to him if we get rid of the couple that seems to run the little uh roadside uh hotel. Which by the way, that was the gaffer and his wife.
SPEAKER_00They're not credited in the film. Yeah, that's who that is in that scene.
SPEAKER_01Right. Um but I'm trying to transport that scene back into the house, and uh my gut is it still wouldn't have been my favorite passage in the movie. But I was so distracted by the feeling that I was being jerked around by the filmmakers that I lost.
SPEAKER_00That's interesting that you put it that way. I mean, I I I think you I agree with you. I just think it kind of breaks up the some of the momentum of the film a little bit. And it doesn't seem necessary. I also think that he attacks her then, and maybe he does that in the play also. I don't know. I I it felt a little over the top to me. And maybe it was the location that did it. Maybe I would have felt differently if they were in the house together. But I for whatever reason it was the one part of the movie that I had a tr issue with. But again, as I said before, the scene of the two of them arguing outside, when you know, it uh when Burton really kind of lays it down for her and says, You've gone too far, you've pushed me too far, and she doesn't relent, she doesn't let up. And that leads, of course, to the the conclusion of the movie. I guess that's I guess it qualifies as the third act, but at least in the movie, uh the when they go back to the house and he really he gives it gives it to her pretty hard, actually. Let's talk about this, because this the children's Wait, I wanna I wanted something else.
SPEAKER_01Because I want to linger for a moment on this question of the play versus the movie, because obviously theater and film share a number of characteristics, but in fact, they're very different media. And so when presented with making a film version of a play, it's really challenging because the structure of plays in speeches and in acts and in purpose and in timing, it's just very, very different than the natural rhythm of film. And I think that they did a terrific job here turning this play into a film, and I think maybe that's why the the the restaurant scene was such so jarring for me, because it did it make it set up my alarm bells of, well, they're just being anxious about the fact that they're that they're filming a play. Whereas when they were in the house, I it didn't feel super stagey to me. Oh, they did a nice job fluidly moving through various rooms of the house, and as you mentioned at the very beginning with the put the different frame compositions, it did not feel like a quote-unquote filmed play, which which is something that I don't normally enjoy watching. And I I I do think we want to really have general respect for the difference between all of these things, between theater and film, between you know, literature and film, all of these things. They're interdependent art forms, but nevertheless, you know, photography and film, each one is very distinct and it's challenging, especially with a a landmark play, to then say, oh, you know, let's make a movie because it's this is a very faithful adaptation. But it's not I mean, I maybe I'm in a minority here. It's not making a movie of the play. It's it's it's not.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, it's it's not. I agree with that. And do you I'm trying to think on the top of my head, like do you can you think of any plays that are made to movies that you particularly like or don't like that you think you know work or don't work? I mean for some reason my head goes to Glenn Glary, Getting Ross, which I actually think is a relatively interesting movie and feels like a play, uh, even though there's even though it moves around to different sets. Um I don't know. Anything that comes to mind for you?
SPEAKER_01Nothing's popping into my head, and I I know I'll regret it in the morning. Uh but it does bring us back to uh your opening comment. B for television, Bergman often filmed versions of his theatrical productions. He shot them as films. It wasn't, again, a film, it's play, but often in my experience, they're somewhat less successful. Although he's done some very kind of theatrically oriented films that I thought were marvelous, the late film called After the Rehearsal, very, very stagy, takes place on a stage, uh, but I do think it's extremely successful as a movie. But I'm I'm sure I'm forgetting four or five killer examples of what I want to talk about here, but I just don't have them on the top of my head. But I I do think that that's that's a good discussion to have if if only I had prepared such thoughts. I know, right?
SPEAKER_00Which is a mi a mystery, which is, you know, it's a one, it's one it's one set. It's fine. It's a Michael Cain thing. He's always good. But nothing else really comes to mind is things that really have stood out as plays. I actually I don't I don't know. The movie that Nichols did in 2000, I think four was closer. Yes. Which feels like a play. I actually think it's a really excellent movie. It is a great movie.
SPEAKER_01Can't share if it was ruined the suspense if we ever talk about that one.
SPEAKER_00Yeah. I know what you're gonna say. Exactly. Uh no, I think it's actually a really good movie with uh it's like it's Jude Law and Julia Roberts and Nally Portman and um what was his name? Uh Clive Owen. It's really good and it feels like a play. I don't even know if it was it may have already it may have initially been a play. I'm not sure. It feels like one.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Ross Powell Well, Nichols went back and forth between film and theater and was very comfortable in in a theatrical setting. He did very late in career, Death of a Salesman with Philip Seymour Hoffman. Uh Did he really try to do that I did not see, but that would have been something special.
SPEAKER_00Yeah. Um I just I I think you're right. I think that's the you know, look, uh I have a lot of praise for for what he does to to make this play feel cinematic. Um but I think maybe the roadhouse part is the one part that sort of falls a little bit flat for me. Because look, at the end of the day, this movie is about people talking in a room. Yeah. Sometimes they're outside talking, but they're talking, and that's really what they're talking in some sort of thing. Or yelling. Or yelling, as the case may be. That's right. It's there's so much we can talk about here in this movie, but I mean I guess we should get to the end, and then maybe we talk about some of the larger sort of thematic questions. Because you know, the key character in the film who is not a character, but who is discussed, is their child. And what initially happens is we see uh Burton uh say to Elizabeth Taylor early on, don't mention the child. Don't mention the kid. We don't know what that means. That's the rule. We don't know what it means, but that's the rule of the game. That's the rule exactly. And then she mentions the kid to Honey, and Honey brings it up to Burton. And you know, one question I actually had about that, I th that we can maybe you can think about this a little bit, is um does does Burton do this on purpose? Does he plant the idea in in her head to not mention the kids? He wants her to mention the kid. I I've actually thought about this a little bit, but um it's an issue I know. It's an interesting question I thought about. So then at some point in the movie, we you know it gets deeper into it, and he and in the confrontation outside the roadhouse, he says to her, You broke the rule, you brought this up among somebody else, and now I'm gonna he sort of says I'm gonna make you pay for this. I'm gonna I'm gonna punish you for this. And that's what he does. They go back to the house and he tells her Well, she goes in this whole sort of monologue about his son and how what a beautiful child he was. And then Burton stands up and says Martha, our son is dead. Yeah. He kills the son. Yeah. Now the idea that we only becomes clear at the end of the movie because Siegel says to him you couldn't have children. Right. And he and Burton said we couldn't have children. Like that's that's actually really interesting that little moment, because that's actually reveal that's the big reveal. They couldn't have kids. They created this child, they created this mythical child, and they had this illusion about the child, and they it was sort of a game between the two of them. And she broke the rules and he had to, in a sense, um uh rebuff her for doing it. But my question, and I think that I have I struggle with is that is he doing this at the end? Is he telling her that our son is dead to hurt her, to get back at her? Or is he telling her this because he's trying to bring her back to reality? Because this movie is a lot about different illusion and reality. And the child, of course, is a not even illusion, it's a delusion that she has, and he is bringing her back to reality. And I really wondered about this a lot because I I part of me feels like he's doing this to help her, even though it doesn't feel that way in the moment. And I'm just curious what you think about this.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Ross Powell Well, I do want to push on this you know illusion versus reality thing. I did not really catch that as a viewer, but uh but Albi has said repeatedly that this is a very important theme for him, the the how people can live or are they willing to live without their illusions and the extent to which people build illusions and make their their lives livable. Uh these two characters have taken that to quite the extreme. It's been, you know, what 16 years they've been pretending in their own the privacy of their own home that they have this child. I think my answer will be unsatisfying, which is my answer is the Star Trek answer. And the Star Trek answer is as follows. You know, most days on the Enterprise, nothing interesting happens. It's very dull to just be floating around or driving around in space, going from here to there. But then every once in a while, something spectacularly interesting happens, and that's what they show you on the episode. Similarly, you know, George, this is the day in which they had this final confrontation between them. And so this is the day that George shatters the illusion, but I'm not sure it was planned, purposeful, benign, you know, or inspirational in any way. I think this was just the day in which something broke between them. Right. I don't know if we have enough access to why. Oddly, in more in support of what the interpretation you were gesturing at, Wexler goes on and on about the lighting of the final scene. And if you do think about the final scene, they're together, they're standing next to each other, there's dawn is breaking, it's light out. We don't get the sense that they're going to somehow now come apart as a couple, so maybe there is some progress and hope there that's been made.
SPEAKER_00Well, wait a minute. That to that point, and I think this is so telling, uh, the final shot of the movie, Burton puts his hand on Taylor's shoulder. Yes. And then she grabs his hand, and then the camera zooms in on their hands together. And then it goes then it goes through out the window, and then it says the end. And I really read that as saying that they are uh in a stronger place than they were before, and that they truly love each other. Yes. And it makes me think that he did this to for her to her because she was living in this delusional world in which they had this child, and he needed to, he felt this need to bring her back to reality. I don't know. I mean, I I think that's too kind to the character. I mean, I agree with you that's a very good thing. You know what? That's exactly what that's exactly what somebody else said to me, and I think that is that is a pretty fair rebuff of what I just said. Well, you know what, it can be it can be both. It can be both. He was trying to hurt her, he was trying to hurt her, but he also understood that this was necessary. I mean, the scene with that whole scene is just the saddest scene. Because and this is why I think Taylor's so good in this movie, she had this whole narrative she goes through. This whole narrative that they clearly over six years have created, and she goes through this whole thing, and then he basically uh uh rebuffs her, crushes her on this. And I do feel like the way that you see uh the reality of of them not having this child hits her. It hits her in a way that doesn't hit Burton, which makes me think she is the much more deluded one than he is.
SPEAKER_01That may be. I mean I go back to one of the four things you said this movie was about. Uh and and number three was um about unrealized expectations and ambitions. And I think that that's really uh important, and I think that that sits more on the shoulders of uh Burton's character than than than Taylor's character. But I mean maybe I'm just more focused on on his because he is more than she, to my mind, the man who failed to live up to his own expectations of himself.
SPEAKER_00You know, I don't know if I think that's true. I don't know if I agree with him that one. I feel like he's comfortable with who he is, and she wants it to be something he doesn't want to be, and that that's a big part of the of the dysfunction in their marriage. She wanted him to be not in the history department, she wanted him to be the history department. She wanted to take over for daddy. That wasn't his ambition. Maybe it was, maybe that was maybe he's George Seacle's character who was very ambitious in the film and he he loses interest. I don't know. But I don't get the he look he's sort of beaten down by it.
SPEAKER_01She says to him in this entire movie. Oh. That's a good question. Uh it's an easy one for me, but it's but I'm biased. So I'm gonna just jump in and say it for me. Just say it because I can't. And she says Associate Professor. Oh, right. He is in his late 40s, right? Or even early 40s. And and what that means is that, you know, I mean, he just kind of got tenure by the skin of his teeth, because he didn't produce a book, uh, but they, you know, they tenured him on promise, and then that book never developed. And so he's been, he's a uh a career associate professor. He's kind of topped out. And again, when we talked about earlier, when he came to to the college, uh Smith College or whichever one it is, one of those New England college. I think it's film at Smith College, isn't it? You know, he was, you know, a uh presumably attractive and and rising star and caught the eye uh of the president's daughter. And one imagined that he thought he was going to have a more successful academic career uh than the one that that he ended up with, which which really seemed to kind of fizzle out. And I I I mean, you know, I'm an academic. I I can I feel the the weight of that on his shoulders. Sure.
SPEAKER_00Sure. I mean, I guess I don't know. He doesn't yeah. I mean, uh look, obviously that could be you don't I don't feel that weight on him. I feel the weight more on her, that she's more upset with him. And we talked about, like, you know, that this movie is about unrealized expectations and ambitions, but also the emptiness of the American dream. I brought that up the idea. And the idea there was that these two get mar they think that getting married and you know, and having this ambition to to succeed, that that this is like this is they they will realize things and they don't realize it. And they and and I mean I wonder is probably if they don't realize that they don't have children. Is that part of the reason why this is that their life is kind of empty?
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell Well it's part it's it's an absence of the appropriate American dream of the day. But again, as you wrote to me, this is not something I even noticed, even though I've seen the movie many times.
SPEAKER_00You don't go you don't get to walk around calling people George and Martha and and not be saying something about America, presumably Trevor Burrus So there there's a question right there we have to ask why are they named George and Martha, which of course doesn't feel to me like an allusion to George Washington and Martha Washington. Trevor Burrus Sure. Yes.
SPEAKER_01It has to I mean how could it not be? It's not like even if Edward Albee wasn't thinking of it, somebody would have said to him, Eddie, you can't name these characters George and Martha. You know, it's uh unless you unless you mean to. So there's I kind of feel like nobody called Edward Albee Eddie. I very much doubt they did. Yes, to to to uh to to invoke another Seinfeld reference. I happen to know that Leonard Bernstein's friends called him Maestro, even in private. Uh and uh Uh I I I I suspect that uh Edward went by Edward in in almost all settings. But he certainly, you know, was a very ambitious person and and wanted to say something about America. And if you're writing a play that's saying something about America or the American dream or the American family or the post-war experience and you know challenges with it, then you know, then you're going with George and Martha is is situating it in, if not America, then at the very least, Americana.
SPEAKER_00Let me ask you this question. So this is, well, okay. Do George and Martha love each other? I'm gonna jump in first and say, I think they do. Even though they fight, even though she is so vicious and mean to him, even though she's running him down constantly. I mean, even the opening sequence, right? She's like, you go to these these these parties, you don't talk to anybody, you don't mingle. Like she's just like she gets pissed him because she can't think of the film, she'll remember, you know, when she says, what a what a dump. It's such a great line, by the way, she says that. But like, I but I still think that they have love. And like and I think that the point when you feel that is when they're they get into bed to get start laughing. Like they clearly have this. Okay, let me say this. Burton and Taylor were married. They they they got together on the set of Cleopatra, they were married. And the only thing I could think about, I I just thought kept coming into my head, especially because of that scene, is these two in real life, Burton and Taylor, must have had the most knocked down, drag out fights. They must have just like thrown shit at each other. And they also must have had the greatest sex that a couple has ever had. Like I could not stop thinking in myself to myself, boy, these two must have had such good sex. Because the energy between them is so strong. Like the animus is so strong, too. Like I and the emotion between them is so strong. I it must have been a live wire, the two of those people in a room. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, I think this is correct. I mean, I think that there's a lot of Burton and Taylor in George and Martha, at least in the dinosaur. Absolutely, 100%. Trevor Burrus, Jr. And it it does reflect the you know, I agree with the answer to your question. They love each other, but it's a i it's a complex and profoundly dysfunctional relationship. And I I imagine it's codependency, isn't it? Yeah, it's co-codependency. Trevor Burrus, Jr. Yes. And it probably ebbs and flows with various crises, but you know, they have been together for a very long time. It is uh obvious to me that no one knows the other character as well as their partner does, right? So there's kind of a just a profound intimacy and partnership there, even if there's a surely a tremendous amount of loathing that's going on simultaneously as well. And yeah, there was some talk about whether you know there there it is a it could be a challenge for the relationship itself to even you know, you have you have rehearsal and you have shooting, and you know, th these are these are very these are very difficult people to begin with.
SPEAKER_00So yeah, but so I wanted to pass on to that point a story that I heard that I thought was fascinating. When this play first got produced on on Broadway, it was Uda Hagen and I cannot remember the man who was who played George. But they did like six nights a week of this. And I remember when I was I heard that story, I was like, how the fuck do they do this six nights a week? Like this just must take so much out of you. Well, apparently they would do a matinee on Saturday, and they had a whole separate, different cast for the matinees because the actors were like, I cannot do this performance twice in one day. It's too much emotion, it's too much vulnerability. And so I think one thing about this that I think must have been so difficult as a married couple was to was to find deep in the recesses of your soul the emotions that you bring out onto the screen. And I you've got to think that that leaves a mark, right? Because you have to you have to like produce a level of anger and loathing for if you're tailored toward Burton and vice versa. How do you just I don't know how you shut that off after the can after the director says, you know, uh a cut. I don't guess the Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01You know as you said, they were they were a a headline grabbing couple for for for the decade of the test tubes to put it mildly. Yes. Yes. I I saw that there was a production of this years later with Ben Gazara and Colin Dewhurst. I think that's that's a production I would have really liked to have seen. I can really see Gazara doing that.
SPEAKER_00Albe wanted uh James Mason and Betty Davis to do uh to do this, actually. Which I think would have been a that would have been interesting, actually. I think that would think that would that would have been that would have worked, I think. Mason could have done it.
SPEAKER_01Uh I don't know. I don't know about Betty Davis.
SPEAKER_00I mean, you know, I don't know actually, you know, I don't know about James either. Mason definitely could have done it. James could do anything, really. Exactly. Um Mr. James Mason could do anything. Um so okay, so we talked about why George Martha love each other. Okay, here's the other question. Who's do Nick and Honey love each other? No, first of all, Nick, by the way, that's George Hegel's character. His name was never mentioned in the play, interestingly enough. It's never mentioned. Do Nick and Honey love each other.
SPEAKER_01That is a good question, which I have not thought about. You know, they're young, they're so young. And I do see something you mentioned earlier, which is her kind of admiration for him and her pride in him. But they're but again, I do my reading of the movie is that we're supposed to see them as the kind of fresh-faced scruffy, you know, uh They're George and Martha 20 or 30 years earlier, right?
SPEAKER_00Exactly. Although again, that's how I saw it too.
SPEAKER_01That's how I saw it too. Trevor Burrus, Jr. But do they have I don't know. I mean, again, uh part of watching this movie repeatedly is to slowly fall out of love with Nick, uh who does go upstairs with Martha with his wife in the house. Uh he goes upstairs. That's a pretty bold move.
SPEAKER_00And he can't he can't perform. Uh and you know, she mocks him for this.
SPEAKER_01I have mixed. Mixed feelings about that. I thought that was you know, was that cowardice on the part of the playwright? What what do you mean? Trevor Burrus, Jr. So Nick and and Martha don't have sex. They they they intend to have sex, but they don't, because as we have said, he's had about you know two quarts of vodka or whatever he's drinking. And so perhaps it's understandable that he was unable to perform in that context, but it would change the dynamic if they actually consummated that act. And so it's almost a little easy.
SPEAKER_00But the aftermath of that leads to two really phenomenal moments. One is where she walks outside the house, it's an aerial view of her where she's just you know um can't can barely even walk straight in a straight line. And you and I love, love that you can hear like the uh the ice clanking in her uh cup as she is as she's walking around there. But then they go back inside and they start talking, and she says something about that she says, I really love George, and George loves me. And that's George's problem. I think she I think what's the line he says, um I think I wrote it down here. Uh there isn't abomin no, actually after a different line when he says to her, There isn't an abomination contest, you haven't won. Um but no, that's actually when he uh she says like she that she loves him so much. And she she, I mean, I think that does speak to like that they do have a real connection, but that she feels as though again, this idea of the that she he has not met her expectations and and that so as a result both of their lives feel somewhat incomplete. But I do think that part of the problem, too, is that they live in this delusional world in which they they've made up this child that doesn't exist. And clearly not having a child has fundamentally uh I don't say destroyed, but like really badly affected their marriage.
SPEAKER_01Yes, but you know, um imagine the counterfactual world in which they had a child. I'm not sure I'm gonna be able to do that. Well that's I'm not sure I'm leaving this couple in charge of watching my kids.
SPEAKER_00You know, I I don't know. You know what? I could I think that could go both ways. I think they could see if they had a kid, it would be a place where they could devote themselves to. Now they just devote themselves to turn each other down. Right. Um and I think when I go back to this question about Honey and Nick, I I don't think they really love each other, and I think they are on the trajectory that George and Martha were on. Uh I think they got married for the wrong reasons. And they they to the extent that I think the two of them are in love, George and Martha, it's because they have nothing else in their lives. That's that may be the biggest reason why they love each other, because they have nothing else to love. I think the opening of the movie is very telling in this regard, where it shows them leaving this party and walking alone from it but fr but filmed from a distance, as if to suggest that they are living in some sort of isolation uh and living in their own little world that they've created, which is again, I think codependency. I don't know if that was a term people use back in the 1960s, but that's certainly what what I think of when I think of the two characters in their relationship. Um it's not a happy situation. And I think that you you look at George and Nick and Honey and you think that's kind of where you know potentially they're going to where these two George and Murtha are. Yeah, yeah. There's certainly some parallelism there.
SPEAKER_01There's certainly some parallels there. I think let's let's imagine that their future is unwritten, but but each of them has has enough parallel characteristics uh of of the other characters that that allows you to to imagine them in that way, and that would be, you know, part of their dramatic purpose as well.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, I think that's right. I mean, look, I I don't think here's the thing. There's no clue there's no s there's no correct answer in this one. I think this movie this this is a movie and is a play that's very open to interpretation. I think I it's funny, I was listening to a podcast, it's really fascinating. With this guy had a whole theory that uh honey and Nick don't actually exist. That it's it's just George and Martha like having it like having this sort of imaginary conversation with this imaginary couple. I I don't know if I buy that, but my the point I bring I bring it up only to suggest that like this is a movie that really lends itself to lots of different interpretations and lots of different ways that you can think about it. And I think that's what makes it particularly effective. There's lots of different ways to read this movie, and I look, I you know, everyone has I'm I'm look, I'm curious if you are uh uh for those of you listening, I'd love to get we'd love to hear your thoughts on this. What are your interpretations? How do you read these characters? Do you think they love each other? Do you think that Burton uh tells her that our son is dead because he uh he hates her or because he loves her? Um by the way, I didn't I I just had one note I want to mention. He does say to her that scene says, it was time. Like it was time to to break the illusion. That's how I read that at least. So that I that does, I think, let itself to my interpretation. But again, I want to hear what you guys think. Um but look, I'll just say this. This movie to me is a fascinating movie. It's a it's a really deep movie, it's a meaty movie. But what I love about this movie are the performances, the acting performances. I think this is just a just a beautifully acted film. I mean, uh we've we have we have talked at length about how good the acting we've seen in these movies we talked about. But this is I don't it I I think like network might be the pinnacle, right? Network is like, or maybe the conversation. It's awfully hard to top this movie though.
SPEAKER_01Yes, and again, I I I do, as I said, it's a great movie, but I I suspect that I like the parts of this movie more than the sum. And as you said, it starts with the performances. And I you know, really appreciate all the performances. But you also have, you know, Mike Nichols as his first film as a director doing what he's doing, and and you know, my BFF Haskell Wexler really as an essential contributor. And so ev all the elements of the movie that are there that are so special, and that's why I think I can enjoy Burton's incredible soliloquy leaning against the tree, even if it takes you outside of maybe the flow of the movie, because it is for me a movie of its parts more than of its sum. And partially that may be because I don't have an obvious theory or answer to your question exactly what this movie is about.
SPEAKER_00No, I look, I I love that. I love what you just said because I think a lot of movies we've seen, the parts are some are often greater than than the sum. Like I think I I guess at a long goodbye, some is greater than the parts, um, which is unusual, but that would be uh we always maybe feel that way a little bit because some of the parts don't add up, but the the totality of the movie works. I think it's true of this movie, this movie as well. I think I think the parts are stronger than the some. Um and not that it's a bad movie, but just that I think the some of the parts are so compelling, and the acting and the directing and the cinematography are compelling that it sort of overwhelms uh the movie. If that makes any sense, I don't know if that makes sense. I don't know. Okay, that works. Fine. Well, whatever. We'll go with that. Um all right. Well, uh we we could talk about this movie for all night long, but I think we're gonna we're gonna finish it up there. Um again, as I said, we would love to hear your thoughts on this. This is sort of this is a as I said, this is a movie that's open to many interpretations. So tell us what you think. Give us your take on it. Um anything else that maybe you wanna you think we didn't talk about that we should have brought up. We'd love to hear your thoughts. Please send us an email. Please leave us fan mail. And as always, please subscribe to the uh podcast. Please become a regular listener, please leave a uh um comment if you're enjoying it, and please buy us a cup of coffee. That option still exists. We have uh um gotten a few people who've done that, but we'd like to get some more. So if you could buy us a cup of coffee, show your appreciation. Um, it's a way just to support the uh podcast and support what we're doing here, so we certainly appreciate it. Um, as I mentioned, I'll be out of the country next week. Uh so Jonathan are gonna have many furtive email exchanges trying to decide what we're gonna talk about next. As always, we'd love to hear your suggestion. By the way, Jonathan, I didn't mention we have another request for Marathon Man came in. We may have no choice but to do this. The momentum seems to be building. The momentum exactly. Exactly. So I feel we're gonna have no choice but to do that. We've also noticed that the early 70s films seem to get a better response than the later 70s films, so maybe we'll stick to something that is earlier in the 70s, not as early as 66, but um you know we still have a few more pre-70s films uh to do, Bonnie and Clyde Pickley. But here's the thing we talked about I'm gonna talk about. We want suggestions as well. And one of the let me step back. One of the major philosophies of this podcast is that not every 70s film was made in the 70s. Yes. And that includes films that we made, I don't know, in the 90s or in the aughts or in the tens. So tell us what is your favorite non-70s movie? We'd love to hear that, and we will consider that as we we have banded on a few ideas of non-70s, 70s films that we'd like to talk about.
SPEAKER_01Your favorite 70s movie that wasn't made in the 70s.
SPEAKER_00Exactly. Bring it on. We want to hear what you think, let us know. And uh until then, have a wonderful week. Have a nice break if you're going away, and we'll see you soon. Alrighty. Bye-bye.