What do you think?
Rate this book
Cocktails with George and Martha: Movies, Marriage, and the Making of Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
An award-winning writer reveals the behind-the-scenes story of the provocative play, the groundbreaking film it became, and how two iconic stars changed the image of marriage forever.
From its debut in 1962, Edward Albee’s Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? was a wild success and a cultural lightning rod. The play transpires over one long, boozy night, laying bare the lies, compromises, and scalding love that have sustained a middle-aged couple through decades of marriage. It scandalized critics but magnetized audiences. Across 644 sold-out Broadway performances, the drama demolished the wall between what could and couldn’t be said on the American stage and marked a definitive end to the I Love Lucy 1950s.
Then, Hollywood took a colossal gamble on Albee’s sophisticated play―and won. Costarring Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, the sensational 1966 film minted first-time director Mike Nichols as industry royalty and won five Oscars. How this scorching play became a movie classic―surviving censorship attempts, its creators’ inexperience, and its stars’ own tumultuous marriage―is one of the most riveting stories in all of cinema.
Now, acclaimed author Philip Gefter tells that story in full for the first time, tracing Woolf from its hushed origins in Greenwich Village’s bohemian enclave, through its tormented production process, to its explosion onto screens across America and a permanent place in the canon of cinematic marriages. This deliciously entertaining book explores how two couples―one fictional, one all too real―forced a nation to confront its most deeply held myths about relationships, sex, family, and, against all odds, love.
From its debut in 1962, Edward Albee’s Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? was a wild success and a cultural lightning rod. The play transpires over one long, boozy night, laying bare the lies, compromises, and scalding love that have sustained a middle-aged couple through decades of marriage. It scandalized critics but magnetized audiences. Across 644 sold-out Broadway performances, the drama demolished the wall between what could and couldn’t be said on the American stage and marked a definitive end to the I Love Lucy 1950s.
Then, Hollywood took a colossal gamble on Albee’s sophisticated play―and won. Costarring Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, the sensational 1966 film minted first-time director Mike Nichols as industry royalty and won five Oscars. How this scorching play became a movie classic―surviving censorship attempts, its creators’ inexperience, and its stars’ own tumultuous marriage―is one of the most riveting stories in all of cinema.
Now, acclaimed author Philip Gefter tells that story in full for the first time, tracing Woolf from its hushed origins in Greenwich Village’s bohemian enclave, through its tormented production process, to its explosion onto screens across America and a permanent place in the canon of cinematic marriages. This deliciously entertaining book explores how two couples―one fictional, one all too real―forced a nation to confront its most deeply held myths about relationships, sex, family, and, against all odds, love.
368 pages, Hardcover
Published February 13, 2024
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 90 reviews
April 9, 2024
This film has loomed large since I first viewed it many years ago, and with each successive viewing, I discovered more.
Philip Gefter has provided a thorough and incisive analysis that will preface my next viewing with more insight.
Philip Gefter has provided a thorough and incisive analysis that will preface my next viewing with more insight.
April 8, 2024
I had read a very extensive biography of Mike Nichols by Mark Harris in the past few years so I knew many of these stories but I loved reading them again plus obtaining much added information so this was a fabulous treat to read. I am always amazed when a film such as Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf turns out to be a spectacular success despite the behind the scenes turmoil. All the stars were aligned when Mike Nichols came on the film as the director and cast Burton and Taylor, at the height of their scandalous affair, in the lead roles. There were so many reasons this film should not have worked but it did and this book is rich in details on how it came to be created so magnificently. Movie lovers will adore this story although I did note one glaring show biz error - Liz had a daughter with Mike Todd, not a son! This is a splendid behind the scenes story of an amazing film adaptation and the many creative minds behind this cinematic treasure.
January 25, 2024
When I first saw Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf on the big screen at the 2011 TCM Festival (with cinematographer Haskell Wexler introducing), the greatness of this previously viewed movie was finally revealed to me. The performances, writing, cinematography and direction came through in a way they never had on a small screen. So, by all means see this movie if you haven't. Once you have, you won't go wrong picking up this book, which although imperfect (more later), provides tons of insight into the background behind, the making of, and the influential power of this landmark film. All great movies seem inevitable, but this story shows just how contingent the process was on both wise and lucky decisions on the part of director Mike Nichols and producer/writer Ernest Lehman, who clashed continuously.
My favorite part of the book is the first several chapters which describe the New York intellectual milieu in which the original Edward Albee play was created and received. The bulk of the book then deals with the production history of the film. The dominant figure is definitely the flamboyant Mike Nichols (I now need to read the Mark Harris biography) who even outshines Liz and Dick (at the height of their popularity/notoriety). But the dominant viewpoint is that of Ernest Lehman, largely because he kept comprehensive notes and dictaphone recordings throughout the process. There's a nice balance between discussing the dishy interpersonal relations between giant egos, and the difficult artistic decisions (e.g. filming in black and white, using Smith College as a location). One area that needed a little more amplification was exactly how the 3.5 hour play was transformed into a 130 minute movie. We're told about the cutting, but nothing about what was cut. Another odd choice was extended visual descriptions of several scenes in the movie, with no real explanation of why that scene was chosen, and no use of these descriptions to make a point (without those, why not just watch the movie).
The final pre-epilogue chapter is a short discussion of the movie's reception and its skillful navigation of the censorship regime. I was particularly amused by the way Jacqueline Kennedy was used to soften the Catholic Legion of Decency. But the way that Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf helped demolish the production code and give rise to the MPAA rating system was given short shrift. Finally, there's an adequate but perhaps unnecessary epilogue discussing the movie's place in the history (both pre- and post- Virginia Woolf) movies about marriage.
All in all, this is recommended for movie buffs and fans of either the play or the movie. It's not as much of a knockout as Glenn Frankel's Shooting Midnight Cowboy, a book that I would even recommend to readers that may think they are uninterested in the topic. But it's certainly a worthy addition to this particular genre of book (which I'm partial to), the biography of a movie.
Thanks to netgalley for providing an early copy of this title for review.
My favorite part of the book is the first several chapters which describe the New York intellectual milieu in which the original Edward Albee play was created and received. The bulk of the book then deals with the production history of the film. The dominant figure is definitely the flamboyant Mike Nichols (I now need to read the Mark Harris biography) who even outshines Liz and Dick (at the height of their popularity/notoriety). But the dominant viewpoint is that of Ernest Lehman, largely because he kept comprehensive notes and dictaphone recordings throughout the process. There's a nice balance between discussing the dishy interpersonal relations between giant egos, and the difficult artistic decisions (e.g. filming in black and white, using Smith College as a location). One area that needed a little more amplification was exactly how the 3.5 hour play was transformed into a 130 minute movie. We're told about the cutting, but nothing about what was cut. Another odd choice was extended visual descriptions of several scenes in the movie, with no real explanation of why that scene was chosen, and no use of these descriptions to make a point (without those, why not just watch the movie).
The final pre-epilogue chapter is a short discussion of the movie's reception and its skillful navigation of the censorship regime. I was particularly amused by the way Jacqueline Kennedy was used to soften the Catholic Legion of Decency. But the way that Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf helped demolish the production code and give rise to the MPAA rating system was given short shrift. Finally, there's an adequate but perhaps unnecessary epilogue discussing the movie's place in the history (both pre- and post- Virginia Woolf) movies about marriage.
All in all, this is recommended for movie buffs and fans of either the play or the movie. It's not as much of a knockout as Glenn Frankel's Shooting Midnight Cowboy, a book that I would even recommend to readers that may think they are uninterested in the topic. But it's certainly a worthy addition to this particular genre of book (which I'm partial to), the biography of a movie.
Thanks to netgalley for providing an early copy of this title for review.
August 12, 2024
If you have ever wanted to read a lot of interesting details about one of the greatest American plays of the twentieth century, this book is for you. The book starts with the life of Edward Albee, the writer of the play, and the Broadway production of the play. The bulk of the book is about the famous film though starring Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, perhaps the most famous couple of mid 20th century America and directed by Mike Nichols. Although there is some good gossipy stuff here, I find the author's incisive analysis of the play's themes the best part of this book. Gefter writes clearly about the play's examination of the play's main characters' marriage, arguing that their marriage stands for the institution of marriage itself.
A few mistakes mar the book for which I don't blame the author as much as his editor. He writes that Ernest Lehman, the movie's producer and writer, went on to produce Sabrina when that movie came out at least 10 years before Woolf. Also, Mike Todd wasn't the father of Taylor's third son, but of her first daughter.
I also wish in his examination of other marriage stories that he had written about Two for the Road, perhaps the best movie about marriage in cinema.
Still, I recommend this book. Fun read!
A few mistakes mar the book for which I don't blame the author as much as his editor. He writes that Ernest Lehman, the movie's producer and writer, went on to produce Sabrina when that movie came out at least 10 years before Woolf. Also, Mike Todd wasn't the father of Taylor's third son, but of her first daughter.
I also wish in his examination of other marriage stories that he had written about Two for the Road, perhaps the best movie about marriage in cinema.
Still, I recommend this book. Fun read!
November 6, 2023
At first I thought this would be interesting, but the material is familiar, nothing new to report for those of us who have clear memories of the events as they unfolded and were reported in the press and in other biographies.
June 4, 2024
Deep dive research into Edward Albee, Richard Burton, Elizabeth Taylor and Mike Nichols. Like reading four bios in one book, plus fascinating look at marriage in film and in all of the aforementioned.
May 28, 2024
A very mixed bag, alternating between compulsively readable, and extraordinarily tiresome. There was a long tiresome beginning, (I stopped reading for two months so as to get over the tiresome beginning), compelling middle (especially when written from Lehman's point of view, he must have left behind remarkable journals), save for incredibly tedious description of entire scenes from the movie, gesture by gesture, line by line, as if we hadn't seen it (or wouldn't rather see it than have it described). If you best friend tried to do this to you, you'd stop them.
And at last the tiresome finish, where the play/movie is placed in the context of every notable work of fiction about marriage which by then I refused to read. The book ended about 2/3 into itself, followed by photos or appendices or indices and whatnot.
I sound unconvinced, and I am, but the good bits are very, very good: if it were just tedious it would get 2 stars or worse. However, the good bits do seem to be owing to Lehman. He is essentially our viewpoint character, and you never get into the heads of any of the other participants to the same extent, not remotely. Lehman, we understand. Nichols, a little bit. Everyone else is othered, and an enigma.
(Note: I'm a writer, so I suffer when I offer fewer than five stars. But these aren't ratings of quality, they're a subjective account of how much I liked the book: 5* = an unalloyed pleasure from start to finish, 4* = really enjoyed it, 3* = readable but not thrilling, 2* = disappointing, and 1* = hated it.)
And at last the tiresome finish, where the play/movie is placed in the context of every notable work of fiction about marriage which by then I refused to read. The book ended about 2/3 into itself, followed by photos or appendices or indices and whatnot.
I sound unconvinced, and I am, but the good bits are very, very good: if it were just tedious it would get 2 stars or worse. However, the good bits do seem to be owing to Lehman. He is essentially our viewpoint character, and you never get into the heads of any of the other participants to the same extent, not remotely. Lehman, we understand. Nichols, a little bit. Everyone else is othered, and an enigma.
(Note: I'm a writer, so I suffer when I offer fewer than five stars. But these aren't ratings of quality, they're a subjective account of how much I liked the book: 5* = an unalloyed pleasure from start to finish, 4* = really enjoyed it, 3* = readable but not thrilling, 2* = disappointing, and 1* = hated it.)
October 13, 2024
This is a generous four star rating--my true one is 3 and a half.
When I was in my youth, I was torn between becoming an actress or a teacher when I grew up. But I told people I wanted to be an actress--I guess that seemed more exciting, at least to others. But unlike what I now realize most aspiring actors (both genders) desire is the performance and accolades part, that wasn't what I craved--I loved reading plays and interpreting the characters. I felt like I could get inside the roles and bring the wonderful words to life. (Even today I read many more plays than I actually see.)
My reading and acting life were somewhat advanced, and I remember loving and acting the role of Martha in my aunt's second bedroom (she had the book; I didn't) many, many times, usually when I should have been doing my 8th or 9th grade homework. I would go through the entire play by myself, speaking Martha's words out loud.
I found myself back there as I read this book, which was highly rated by the New York Times. Gefter lovingly goes into many of the scenes, and as he does, I was kind of amazed at how viscerally I remembered them. I have seen the movie once (maybe twice) over the years, but not in at least a decade, and of course, that's not the same as reading the whole thing repeatedly. I can barely remember the film, except noting its slight differences in the movie, particularly when they leave the house (they never leave it in the play; it's its own kind of prison, like the marriage, like society held for women in those days, but also for the capitalist hierarchy of values that would not recognize George's scholastic insights as much as Nick's qualities of being good looking and a more macho type).
There's a good deal about the making of the money, the relationships between Mike Nichols, the first time movie director and Ernest Lehman, who was the producer and the "beta male" to Nichols, studio owner Jack Warner, and Richard Burton, no shrinking violet himself.
Speaking of violet, lots of attention is paid to Elizabeth Taylor, and her role as an older harridan, quite the opposite of her more glamorous self and the majority of her acting parts. One thing is how openly Elizabeth asked for/demanded jewelry gifts from all of her directors and producers, and how she got others to buttress those requests. I had recently watched a documentary on Elizabeth Taylor and found much to admire, but I have to say, I found that childish grasping aspect of asking for jewelry of her repellent and gross. I was also appalled by Taylor and Burton's lack of professional behavior--they arrived days after the initial beginning of filming, would show up at 10 a.m. and, if not in the mood, took afternoons off without notice. I understand that filming can be grueling, but if you want a nine to five job, don't go into acting.
These mean-spirited revelations about all the individuals involved in the making of the movie were unsavory and, for me, too much a part of the book. I prefer the historical and sociological context and. of course, the literary examination. I did find myself disagreeing with one particular interpretation--Gefter asserts that when Martha alternately insults and seeks physical affection from George in the earliest scenes, she is hurt when he rebuffs her and therefore sets the scene for her future outrageous behavior. In my opinion, she seeks affection from the same inner place from which she sneers at him--she is interested in showing and feeling her power, and looking for an excuse to behave badly later that night. It's insane to expect someone to embrace you when you're being vile to them, but she's operating from such a place of powerlessness and frustrated energy that she has lost the ability to be reasonable. Gefter ultimately thinks that at their core, George and Martha love each other, but to me, it's such an unhealthy, twisted version of love that it might as well not be called love at all.
As you can see, I'd love to engage all about the play and the characters' motivations and mentalities. I really don't care what kind of car Nichols buys himself for his birthday or what kind of car Elizabeth buys Richard for his. I do like learning that both Nichols and Burton are Scorpios and would love to look at their charts, as the triangulation between Taylor, Nichols, and Burton vs. Lehman, Warner and Nichols is all much more interesting to me.
The book has me yearning to see the movie one more time--and I wish I still owned the play, which I bought as an adult and acted out a few more times :)
When I was in my youth, I was torn between becoming an actress or a teacher when I grew up. But I told people I wanted to be an actress--I guess that seemed more exciting, at least to others. But unlike what I now realize most aspiring actors (both genders) desire is the performance and accolades part, that wasn't what I craved--I loved reading plays and interpreting the characters. I felt like I could get inside the roles and bring the wonderful words to life. (Even today I read many more plays than I actually see.)
My reading and acting life were somewhat advanced, and I remember loving and acting the role of Martha in my aunt's second bedroom (she had the book; I didn't) many, many times, usually when I should have been doing my 8th or 9th grade homework. I would go through the entire play by myself, speaking Martha's words out loud.
I found myself back there as I read this book, which was highly rated by the New York Times. Gefter lovingly goes into many of the scenes, and as he does, I was kind of amazed at how viscerally I remembered them. I have seen the movie once (maybe twice) over the years, but not in at least a decade, and of course, that's not the same as reading the whole thing repeatedly. I can barely remember the film, except noting its slight differences in the movie, particularly when they leave the house (they never leave it in the play; it's its own kind of prison, like the marriage, like society held for women in those days, but also for the capitalist hierarchy of values that would not recognize George's scholastic insights as much as Nick's qualities of being good looking and a more macho type).
There's a good deal about the making of the money, the relationships between Mike Nichols, the first time movie director and Ernest Lehman, who was the producer and the "beta male" to Nichols, studio owner Jack Warner, and Richard Burton, no shrinking violet himself.
Speaking of violet, lots of attention is paid to Elizabeth Taylor, and her role as an older harridan, quite the opposite of her more glamorous self and the majority of her acting parts. One thing is how openly Elizabeth asked for/demanded jewelry gifts from all of her directors and producers, and how she got others to buttress those requests. I had recently watched a documentary on Elizabeth Taylor and found much to admire, but I have to say, I found that childish grasping aspect of asking for jewelry of her repellent and gross. I was also appalled by Taylor and Burton's lack of professional behavior--they arrived days after the initial beginning of filming, would show up at 10 a.m. and, if not in the mood, took afternoons off without notice. I understand that filming can be grueling, but if you want a nine to five job, don't go into acting.
These mean-spirited revelations about all the individuals involved in the making of the movie were unsavory and, for me, too much a part of the book. I prefer the historical and sociological context and. of course, the literary examination. I did find myself disagreeing with one particular interpretation--Gefter asserts that when Martha alternately insults and seeks physical affection from George in the earliest scenes, she is hurt when he rebuffs her and therefore sets the scene for her future outrageous behavior. In my opinion, she seeks affection from the same inner place from which she sneers at him--she is interested in showing and feeling her power, and looking for an excuse to behave badly later that night. It's insane to expect someone to embrace you when you're being vile to them, but she's operating from such a place of powerlessness and frustrated energy that she has lost the ability to be reasonable. Gefter ultimately thinks that at their core, George and Martha love each other, but to me, it's such an unhealthy, twisted version of love that it might as well not be called love at all.
As you can see, I'd love to engage all about the play and the characters' motivations and mentalities. I really don't care what kind of car Nichols buys himself for his birthday or what kind of car Elizabeth buys Richard for his. I do like learning that both Nichols and Burton are Scorpios and would love to look at their charts, as the triangulation between Taylor, Nichols, and Burton vs. Lehman, Warner and Nichols is all much more interesting to me.
The book has me yearning to see the movie one more time--and I wish I still owned the play, which I bought as an adult and acted out a few more times :)
April 15, 2024
Intriguing account of the writing of the groundbreaking 1962 play Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, its casting and Broadway run, and the production history of the more controversial film version with Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, directed by Mike Nichols. Behind-the-scenes information shows everyone behaving badly at times with Ernest Lehman (producer/screenwriter) coming off the best. A number of the anecdotes/comments are also on the commentary track of the DVD. The gossip factor may crowd out a greater analysis of the play/movie.
September 26, 2024
Excellent look at the background of the play. Uta Hagen, the first Martha sounds brilliant. Most of the book is about the film and its director, Mike Nichols. The four main characters in the film are well described in their unstable lives.
February 16, 2024
A thorough and insightful analysis of this cinematic creation.
September 15, 2024
Loved it.
March 20, 2024
I only first saw the movie adaptation of “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” a couple years ago, and I was fascinated by it. Real-life spouses Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton play intellectuals who spend a drunken night berating each other and the younger couple (played by George Segal and Sandy Dennis) they’ve invited over for a nightcap. Taylor and Burton, whose own troubled, on-again-off-again relationship was tabloid fodder for years, play their vicious parts so convincingly. Almost too convincingly. When I read in an article late last year that a new book was being released about the production of the film, I knew I’d be interested in hearing how these two Hollywood icons were able to pull from their own lives to craft Oscar-worthy (and in Taylor’s case, Oscar-winning) performances. Little did I know Taylor and Burton would have so much to pull from! I began reading the book shortly after it released, right after rewatching the film. The book is a mostly by-the-numbers history of how the movie came to be. How playwright Edward Albee wrote the play and how its unlikely success drove interest in a movie. How director Mike Nichols and screenwriter Ernie Lehman fought like cats and dogs through pre-production. How the drama only increased when the actors arrived on set. It rehashes some old gossip about Taylor and Burton’s infamous affair on the set of “Cleopatra”—and that tea is still hot. It’s so easy to picture the two actors in the “Virginia Woolf” roles after reading about some of their actual drunken incidents, like the party where Burton demanded Taylor declare who she loved more, him or her then-husband…in front of her husband, plus his entire family. The book covers more ground than I expected, honestly. Taylor and Burton are always top of mind, but there’s a lot to moviemaking that doesn’t involve the actors, and this book covers much of it. In that way, it’s probably also indicative of a lot of movie productions—especially adaptations, especially in the 1960s. But it also made me have an even higher appreciation for “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” and what it was able to pull off. The book describes that in the ‘50s and early ‘60s, Taylor had gotten roles mostly because of her beauty and magnetism. She wasn’t known as an especially talented actor, but she nevertheless had a movie star aura. But you wouldn’t have known that by watching this movie. It strips Taylor of much of her beauty by making her older and less attractive, but her acting talent shines brighter than ever. And no wonder, when you learn that she had never before been asked to formally rehearse. “Virginia Woolf” marked her first table read after filming 30+ films without one. I guess practice does make perfect when you’re already halfway there. But it also took a lot of work. The role of a director has long been somewhat of an enigma to me, but you really see what an auteur like Mike Nichols does on set—coaching Taylor through the performance of a lifetime is just part of it. The book’s writing gets the job done, but it’s pretty straightforward. It’s not dull by any means, but there’s not a lot of personality or poetry. As a vehicle for this fascinating behind-the-scenes story, it does the trick.
6/10
6/10
March 14, 2024
I'm a movie fan so I was predisposed to at least like this and I think it was okay, but the material feels stretched thin particularly in the final character. The author isn't an especially creative writer so this is more a recitation of facts with some ham-handed, somewhat pretentious attempts at analysis of the deeper meanings of the play thrown in.
There are also a few glaring errors which anyone who is the least familiar with the stars of the film, which honestly will be a majority of this book's readership, may find irritating as I did.
Most prominent of these is the author's continual reference to the "Dick and Liz" phenomenon that swirled around the couple once they fell for each other on the set of "Cleopatra". As someone who is old enough to remember at least some of the crazy furor surrounding the couple it was always, always "Liz and Dick" never the other way round. Then when briefly detailing Elizabeth Taylor's life before becoming involved with Burton he states that during her marriage to Mike Todd she gave birth to her third son. Thing is Elizabeth Taylor had two sons from her second marriage to Michael Wilding and a daughter-Liza with Todd (as well as a daughter-Maria-that she adopted with fourth husband Eddie Fisher and later adopted by Burton after their marriage). Admittedly small errors but if something so well-known to fans, and easily accessible by a simple Google search by anyone else, is wrong how reliable are the rest of the facts presented?
There are also a few glaring errors which anyone who is the least familiar with the stars of the film, which honestly will be a majority of this book's readership, may find irritating as I did.
Most prominent of these is the author's continual reference to the "Dick and Liz" phenomenon that swirled around the couple once they fell for each other on the set of "Cleopatra". As someone who is old enough to remember at least some of the crazy furor surrounding the couple it was always, always "Liz and Dick" never the other way round. Then when briefly detailing Elizabeth Taylor's life before becoming involved with Burton he states that during her marriage to Mike Todd she gave birth to her third son. Thing is Elizabeth Taylor had two sons from her second marriage to Michael Wilding and a daughter-Liza with Todd (as well as a daughter-Maria-that she adopted with fourth husband Eddie Fisher and later adopted by Burton after their marriage). Admittedly small errors but if something so well-known to fans, and easily accessible by a simple Google search by anyone else, is wrong how reliable are the rest of the facts presented?
March 13, 2024
I just think it comes off long a really long Wikipedia article. I did learn a good amount of new info (i.e. names attached to star, Sandy Dennis's story, more than I knew about the Burtons).
April 26, 2024
Imagine this movie: a young promising director, a script from a Broadway play with over 600 sold out performances, and a pair of acting stars, whose torrid love affair outshined their shared celluloid memories. Fortunate for us, that movie exists. Whether it’s a great play or had greatness thrust upon it, “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf”, opened the pearly gates of marriage from“happy ever after” to anguished psychosexual mind games. Future plays from Albee , “Three Tall Women”, “The Goat, or Who is Sylvia”, and “The Marriage Play”, would dive deeper into these themes of class, marriage, and meaning. But lighting never struck so hard for Albee as it did with “Virigna Woolf” A play "about a marriage, and equally a play about marriage ( intro, xiii)”.
Geftner gives the origin story to “Who’s Afraid of Virgina Woolf”. In a bar, Edward Albee spots the dry soap on a bottom of a mirror with the titlar words. The discovery stays in his unconscious and as he builds his writing skills, he continues to shape these ideas for the plot dynamics From the origin in a Greenwich Village bar, we expand outward across the playwright’s life. His emotionally barren emotional life. His deep immersion in the New York artistic community. And of course there is the trenchant writing. His barbarous one-act play “Zoo Story” and loosely autobiographical “American Dream”challenged the mid-brow expectations of prescribed theater of the time. Profanity, mind games, sexual innuendo , and hostile truths find themselves in “Virginia Wolf” - and among the many who were moved by it, future director Mike Nichols was found.
After Broadway success with “Nichols and May” comedy , and success directing on broadway, Nichols found his way to the directing chair. Battling producer Ernest Lehman for artistic independence, this book details the artistic tug of war of every decision. Filming in black and white, acquiescing to his star's temperments, navigating the gossips and press, and building confidence and skills with every shooting day. Nichols is portrayed here as both the genius and revolting narcissist; a man obsessed with craft and image. The film making experience seemed to largely be a drag, and the stories of Taylor and Burton scream of annoying indulgence. The stories on set aren’t all that fun or revelatory, but they do show Nichols grit in seeing the project through to completion. He gives great insights into filmmaking - particularly with the perspective taking of Mike Nichols to inhabit the different characters.
“Cocktails with George and Martha” adroitly tells us the narrative of the play, the cultural contexts of pre-turbulent late 1960s, and analyzes marriage through a harsh lens of the gamesmanship in the story. In a memorable passage he writes, “the initial intoxication of love and the electricity of sexual attraction that brings a couple together does not foretell the complexities of the marriage to follow (p.155). The marrow of marriage is dissected here, through the clever wordplay, and emotional build-up between the four actors.
At the bookends, the writing is most powerful. Whether establishing the impact of the
"Virigina Woolf", or meditating on other marriage related movies (45 Years, a Marriage Story, Scenes of a Marriage), Geftner brings sharp analysis and wit to the page. He captures the bubbling social change within just before the defining 1960s cultural changes. We see the charged energy the pre-feminist Martha character, the psychoanalytic unseen forces of “daddy’ and “baby”, and the exposed raw nerves of unmet desires in George and Martha's incessant fighting. Betty Freidman famously wrote of “the problem with no name”. That problem, the widespread disenchantment with marriage, is laid bare in this still breathing work. It's a a demanding play, with few answers, and one impossible question about the ideas we fear and the traditions we hold to.
Geftner gives the origin story to “Who’s Afraid of Virgina Woolf”. In a bar, Edward Albee spots the dry soap on a bottom of a mirror with the titlar words. The discovery stays in his unconscious and as he builds his writing skills, he continues to shape these ideas for the plot dynamics From the origin in a Greenwich Village bar, we expand outward across the playwright’s life. His emotionally barren emotional life. His deep immersion in the New York artistic community. And of course there is the trenchant writing. His barbarous one-act play “Zoo Story” and loosely autobiographical “American Dream”challenged the mid-brow expectations of prescribed theater of the time. Profanity, mind games, sexual innuendo , and hostile truths find themselves in “Virginia Wolf” - and among the many who were moved by it, future director Mike Nichols was found.
After Broadway success with “Nichols and May” comedy , and success directing on broadway, Nichols found his way to the directing chair. Battling producer Ernest Lehman for artistic independence, this book details the artistic tug of war of every decision. Filming in black and white, acquiescing to his star's temperments, navigating the gossips and press, and building confidence and skills with every shooting day. Nichols is portrayed here as both the genius and revolting narcissist; a man obsessed with craft and image. The film making experience seemed to largely be a drag, and the stories of Taylor and Burton scream of annoying indulgence. The stories on set aren’t all that fun or revelatory, but they do show Nichols grit in seeing the project through to completion. He gives great insights into filmmaking - particularly with the perspective taking of Mike Nichols to inhabit the different characters.
“Cocktails with George and Martha” adroitly tells us the narrative of the play, the cultural contexts of pre-turbulent late 1960s, and analyzes marriage through a harsh lens of the gamesmanship in the story. In a memorable passage he writes, “the initial intoxication of love and the electricity of sexual attraction that brings a couple together does not foretell the complexities of the marriage to follow (p.155). The marrow of marriage is dissected here, through the clever wordplay, and emotional build-up between the four actors.
At the bookends, the writing is most powerful. Whether establishing the impact of the
"Virigina Woolf", or meditating on other marriage related movies (45 Years, a Marriage Story, Scenes of a Marriage), Geftner brings sharp analysis and wit to the page. He captures the bubbling social change within just before the defining 1960s cultural changes. We see the charged energy the pre-feminist Martha character, the psychoanalytic unseen forces of “daddy’ and “baby”, and the exposed raw nerves of unmet desires in George and Martha's incessant fighting. Betty Freidman famously wrote of “the problem with no name”. That problem, the widespread disenchantment with marriage, is laid bare in this still breathing work. It's a a demanding play, with few answers, and one impossible question about the ideas we fear and the traditions we hold to.
March 28, 2024
As a longtime lover of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? on stage and on film, and as somebody who will be directing a professional production of the play in a few months, this was QUITE a disappointing read. What ostensibly seems to be a ‘making of’ Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, this book contains barely any analysis of the work as an art object and also eschews any narrative sensibility to depict the series of events in a worthy, fun, or insightful manner.
Most of the book would go, ‘Glamorous Elizabeth Taylor, the most famous woman in the world, was two hours late for her call time. Mike Nichols was furious. He stormed into Ernest Lehman’s office and berated him. The next day, Lehman bought Taylor a string of pearls. She laughed in her giant dressing room, outfitted with a grand piano. They drank champagne and rolled up to set late the next day. Jack Warner called insouciant Mike Nichols into his office’. Philip Gefter whacks you over the head with these anecdotes ad nauseam. Everyone is screaming at everyone, being annoyed with everyone, Jack Warner throws down an ultimatum, and then somehow the movie was great. Huh?
The book speeds through Albee's growing up and his formative time writing the play - over half the 292 pages is dedicated to the film - only for most of the film's focus to be sloppy and muddled. A ‘behind the scenes’ look at filmmaking should be fun, interesting, gripping. A stronger storyteller would have been able to weave these scenes together to form something of narrative coherence. But alas. It was not to be. Unless you really, really like to hear about how Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor are ‘the most famous couple in the world’ over and over, this is not a book to be read.
The book’s final chapter, however, is perhaps its most heinous. Titled ‘Marriage in Relief’, it does not talk about Woolf very much at all. Instead, it looks at the film’s ‘lineage amid the corpus of marriage movies before and since’. Gefter then spends almost twenty pages just talking about random movies that deal with marriage and draws weak links back to Woolf, saying things such as ‘Like Martha, so-and-so was discontent’, or ‘Before Virginia Woolf, movies about marriage hewed to the conventions at the time’. There is no analysis! No sense to put these films in conversation with each other! Just describing their plots in horrifically boring detail before moving on to the next film. Oh my god!! I thought I was hallucinating!
However, the book isnt truly substanceless. Cocktails shines the most in its moments wherein it directly quotes Nichols, Albee, Taylor, Burton, or anyone else in their analysis of the text. Gefter has done a tremendous amount of research here (especially in the earlier parts of the book) and I found those quotes and opinions quite insightful and stirring. So I will admit that it was helpful in assembling some disparate quotations and thoughts regarding the piece from some of its most influential players. For that, I am thankful. And that is what my single star for this book's rating is attributed to. I just wish he’d provide some perspective, some thought, some rigor to the words instead of just regurgitating and assembling what other people said, did, or achieved.
Most of the book would go, ‘Glamorous Elizabeth Taylor, the most famous woman in the world, was two hours late for her call time. Mike Nichols was furious. He stormed into Ernest Lehman’s office and berated him. The next day, Lehman bought Taylor a string of pearls. She laughed in her giant dressing room, outfitted with a grand piano. They drank champagne and rolled up to set late the next day. Jack Warner called insouciant Mike Nichols into his office’. Philip Gefter whacks you over the head with these anecdotes ad nauseam. Everyone is screaming at everyone, being annoyed with everyone, Jack Warner throws down an ultimatum, and then somehow the movie was great. Huh?
The book speeds through Albee's growing up and his formative time writing the play - over half the 292 pages is dedicated to the film - only for most of the film's focus to be sloppy and muddled. A ‘behind the scenes’ look at filmmaking should be fun, interesting, gripping. A stronger storyteller would have been able to weave these scenes together to form something of narrative coherence. But alas. It was not to be. Unless you really, really like to hear about how Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor are ‘the most famous couple in the world’ over and over, this is not a book to be read.
The book’s final chapter, however, is perhaps its most heinous. Titled ‘Marriage in Relief’, it does not talk about Woolf very much at all. Instead, it looks at the film’s ‘lineage amid the corpus of marriage movies before and since’. Gefter then spends almost twenty pages just talking about random movies that deal with marriage and draws weak links back to Woolf, saying things such as ‘Like Martha, so-and-so was discontent’, or ‘Before Virginia Woolf, movies about marriage hewed to the conventions at the time’. There is no analysis! No sense to put these films in conversation with each other! Just describing their plots in horrifically boring detail before moving on to the next film. Oh my god!! I thought I was hallucinating!
However, the book isnt truly substanceless. Cocktails shines the most in its moments wherein it directly quotes Nichols, Albee, Taylor, Burton, or anyone else in their analysis of the text. Gefter has done a tremendous amount of research here (especially in the earlier parts of the book) and I found those quotes and opinions quite insightful and stirring. So I will admit that it was helpful in assembling some disparate quotations and thoughts regarding the piece from some of its most influential players. For that, I am thankful. And that is what my single star for this book's rating is attributed to. I just wish he’d provide some perspective, some thought, some rigor to the words instead of just regurgitating and assembling what other people said, did, or achieved.
March 5, 2024
This is an amazing and highly enjoyable look at the making of the film "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf." We learn about the life of Edward Albee, the playwright, and the hurdles he faced both in his childhood and in getting the play staged. The criticism at the time was about how a gay man cannot write about a heterosexual marriage so it must be coded in some way to reflect a gay relationship and laden with homophobic references in the review. Gefter does a brilliant job of discussing the concept and reality of marriage and relationships and how in all relationships, as much as we want to bring out our better self, we can still play games and test, prod and push limits. One of my favorite parts of the book is the letter Albee writes in response to this nasty review -worth a read!.
The other things I learned in this book - the theory is Albee based the characters on two faculty members where he taught and who Andy Warhol made a film about and Kenneth Anger roomed with this couple so witnessed first-hand their cruelty to each other. But also there are themes from his own childhood of being "invisible" to his parents. I also learned that they filmed at Smith College (based on the suggestion of Gloria Steinem (an alumna) and girlfriend of Mike Nichols (the director) at the time). When Albee sold the filming rights to Jack Warner, Albee insisted on having Bette Davis and James Mason as the stars. That would have been a really interesting and different film! I would have loved to see Bette Davis deliver her own line "What a dump!" in this film.
We learn a lot about the trials and tribulations of making a film - from pressure from the studios, to the newer director Mike Nichols who was still battling insecurities yet wanted complete control, to the long suffering producer Ernest Lehman (who represented old Hollywood) who kept copious journals of the making of the film, and of course the up and down new romance of Liz Taylor and Richard Burton.
This is just an incredible read and the author does a fantastic job weaving all of the themes together in a compelling and entertaining way.
I highly recommend this book.
Thank you to Netgalley and Bloomsbury USA, for an ARC and I voluntarily left this review.
The other things I learned in this book - the theory is Albee based the characters on two faculty members where he taught and who Andy Warhol made a film about and Kenneth Anger roomed with this couple so witnessed first-hand their cruelty to each other. But also there are themes from his own childhood of being "invisible" to his parents. I also learned that they filmed at Smith College (based on the suggestion of Gloria Steinem (an alumna) and girlfriend of Mike Nichols (the director) at the time). When Albee sold the filming rights to Jack Warner, Albee insisted on having Bette Davis and James Mason as the stars. That would have been a really interesting and different film! I would have loved to see Bette Davis deliver her own line "What a dump!" in this film.
We learn a lot about the trials and tribulations of making a film - from pressure from the studios, to the newer director Mike Nichols who was still battling insecurities yet wanted complete control, to the long suffering producer Ernest Lehman (who represented old Hollywood) who kept copious journals of the making of the film, and of course the up and down new romance of Liz Taylor and Richard Burton.
This is just an incredible read and the author does a fantastic job weaving all of the themes together in a compelling and entertaining way.
I highly recommend this book.
Thank you to Netgalley and Bloomsbury USA, for an ARC and I voluntarily left this review.
May 24, 2024
I suppose Philip Gefter’s COCKTAILS WITH GEORGE AND MARTHA: MOVIES, MARRIAGE, AND THE MAKING OF WHO’S AFRAIF OF VIRGINIA WOOLF? could be categorized as a moderately satisfying beach read. It’s perhaps a couple of steps higher than Hedda Hooper, but not much better than that.
I should confess to having begun the book with some misgivings. After seeing the indelible original Broadway production of Edward Albee’s play, with Uta Hagen and Arthur Hill as Martha and George, I was considerably disappointed in the movie, particularly with Taylor’s performance. I’ve always seen her more as a movie star than as an actress, and from the start of her career she seemed in urgent need of a vocal coach. As Martha, she brought to mind a little girl dressed up in her mother’s clothes to go trick-or-treating on Halloween.
As portrayed by Gefter in this book, the principals — Taylor, Burton, and director Mike Nichols — come off as petty, tiresome brats, spoiled by the public, by an industry, and mostly by themselves. After a while, continuing to read about them is like going to dinner with folks you no longer find bearable.
Gefter does include some enjoyable cultural and social tidbits, including the fact that Taylor and Burton’s 1950s extramarital affair (while filming the laughably bad CLEOPATRA) provoked U. S. Representative Iris Faircloth Blitch to call for Congress to make the couple ineligible to return to the U.S. on the grounds of “undesirability.” Several other members of Congress agreed, citing the nation’s “moral slide.” The seeds of the current madness in the U.S. go way, way back.
I also enjoyed reading (1) that during the filming of CLEOPATRA in Rome, Mike Nichols suggested that Taylor wear a babushka so that she could go sight-seeing without being hounded by the press and (2) that Nichols and Gloria Steinem had a romantic relationship and considered marrying. Gefter frequently pads the book and carries on as if he’s being paid by the word. This is particularly hard to take when he’s recounting the action of the movie and in a chapter in which he discusses other Hollywood treatments of the subject of marriage.
I should confess to having begun the book with some misgivings. After seeing the indelible original Broadway production of Edward Albee’s play, with Uta Hagen and Arthur Hill as Martha and George, I was considerably disappointed in the movie, particularly with Taylor’s performance. I’ve always seen her more as a movie star than as an actress, and from the start of her career she seemed in urgent need of a vocal coach. As Martha, she brought to mind a little girl dressed up in her mother’s clothes to go trick-or-treating on Halloween.
As portrayed by Gefter in this book, the principals — Taylor, Burton, and director Mike Nichols — come off as petty, tiresome brats, spoiled by the public, by an industry, and mostly by themselves. After a while, continuing to read about them is like going to dinner with folks you no longer find bearable.
Gefter does include some enjoyable cultural and social tidbits, including the fact that Taylor and Burton’s 1950s extramarital affair (while filming the laughably bad CLEOPATRA) provoked U. S. Representative Iris Faircloth Blitch to call for Congress to make the couple ineligible to return to the U.S. on the grounds of “undesirability.” Several other members of Congress agreed, citing the nation’s “moral slide.” The seeds of the current madness in the U.S. go way, way back.
I also enjoyed reading (1) that during the filming of CLEOPATRA in Rome, Mike Nichols suggested that Taylor wear a babushka so that she could go sight-seeing without being hounded by the press and (2) that Nichols and Gloria Steinem had a romantic relationship and considered marrying. Gefter frequently pads the book and carries on as if he’s being paid by the word. This is particularly hard to take when he’s recounting the action of the movie and in a chapter in which he discusses other Hollywood treatments of the subject of marriage.
September 20, 2024
This was a brilliant overview of the making of one of my all-time favorite movies and plays. Gefter was thorough and extremely detailed - if a little repetitive - in his approach to the material; he provides a huge amount of context and analysis that is balanced provocatively with gossip-y details (Burton and Taylor stopped work every day at 5pm when they were brought Bloody Marys by an assistant; Liz refused to work before 10am; cases of booze and gifts were delivered to the cast members when they arrived on set to shoot the film; everyone had a Rolls Royce). He gave clear explanations about Albee's motivations for writing the play, to the development of the Broadway production, to the struggles and inspiration to bringing it to the screen. The side drama of "Dick and Liz's" star power on the set was juicy. The director/producer squabbles between Nichols and Lehman were also juicy. Knowing how all of the various elements came together to create - what I think to be - a cinematic masterpiece makes me love the movie and appreciate the cast performances even more. Time for a rewatch!
The anecdote about Jackie Kennedy going to a screening with the Catholic Morality Board - or whatever it was called - and strategically announcing in earshot to the Monsignor in charge that “Jack would have loved this film” was wild. She somehow managed to help influence the Catholics rating of the film, and then shortly after this movie was made the Hays Code was abolished. In its place was established the rating code of today (G, R, etc)
The part that was unnecessary was the final chapter, where Gefter compares Virginia Woolf? to other movies about marriage. On the other hand, it does serve a kind of analytical/academic purpose - attempting to elevate the book from merely a retelling of the movie making by positioning it within a timeline of movies handling similar material. Overall, I appreciate what Gefter did with his broader analysis of what marriage is. Side note: was surprised to learn that George and Martha were based on a real life couple, Marie Mencken and Willard Maas. Mencken was an avant garde filmmaker who influenced Andy Warhol.
The anecdote about Jackie Kennedy going to a screening with the Catholic Morality Board - or whatever it was called - and strategically announcing in earshot to the Monsignor in charge that “Jack would have loved this film” was wild. She somehow managed to help influence the Catholics rating of the film, and then shortly after this movie was made the Hays Code was abolished. In its place was established the rating code of today (G, R, etc)
The part that was unnecessary was the final chapter, where Gefter compares Virginia Woolf? to other movies about marriage. On the other hand, it does serve a kind of analytical/academic purpose - attempting to elevate the book from merely a retelling of the movie making by positioning it within a timeline of movies handling similar material. Overall, I appreciate what Gefter did with his broader analysis of what marriage is. Side note: was surprised to learn that George and Martha were based on a real life couple, Marie Mencken and Willard Maas. Mencken was an avant garde filmmaker who influenced Andy Warhol.
April 23, 2024
Engaging and well-researched post-mortem on an iconic and classic film, well supported with new sources and spirited anecdotes that capture both the time period and the lasting legacy of the film. While I think Gefter's book is probably more interesting to those who have seen the film (once, twice, or an unquantifiable number of times, like me), its comprehensive overview of backstage politics and off screen drama make the story of the film feel just as interesting as the film itself.
Gefter did a particularly good job detailing the tensions between director and producer, although I thought having access to Lehman’s diaries gave him the narrative upper hand at points in a way that seemed to cast Nichols as a sort of manipulative sycophant with blind deference to the Burtons in some instances. Although Gefter did allude to it, I felt he failed to properly capture Nichols’ true genius, not only as a director, but also when it came to Elizabeth and Richard, where he demonstrated not merely appeasement but something much more sophisticated. That is, it seems like Nichols realized the key to unlocking Elizabeth’s performance was not through directorial prodding but through Richard himself. Realizing she never trusted directors or produced, but she would defer almost entirely to Richard’s instructions or suggestions, his whispered criticism to him was what ultimately made its way into her performance. This Svengali dynamic is splattered all throughout Burton's diaries and other sources but it’s clear Nichols understood it early and exploited it effectively by having the rare gift of Richard Burton’s complete trust and respect. Richard, a man who repeatedly declared that he never found directors useful in his life made a rare exception for Nichols, even years after the movie was made. That says quite a lot about Nichols but I didn’t get that sense from Gefter. Otherwise fascinating book, incredibly well researched, and – rather predictably – made the movie even more enjoyable to (re)watch after reading
Gefter did a particularly good job detailing the tensions between director and producer, although I thought having access to Lehman’s diaries gave him the narrative upper hand at points in a way that seemed to cast Nichols as a sort of manipulative sycophant with blind deference to the Burtons in some instances. Although Gefter did allude to it, I felt he failed to properly capture Nichols’ true genius, not only as a director, but also when it came to Elizabeth and Richard, where he demonstrated not merely appeasement but something much more sophisticated. That is, it seems like Nichols realized the key to unlocking Elizabeth’s performance was not through directorial prodding but through Richard himself. Realizing she never trusted directors or produced, but she would defer almost entirely to Richard’s instructions or suggestions, his whispered criticism to him was what ultimately made its way into her performance. This Svengali dynamic is splattered all throughout Burton's diaries and other sources but it’s clear Nichols understood it early and exploited it effectively by having the rare gift of Richard Burton’s complete trust and respect. Richard, a man who repeatedly declared that he never found directors useful in his life made a rare exception for Nichols, even years after the movie was made. That says quite a lot about Nichols but I didn’t get that sense from Gefter. Otherwise fascinating book, incredibly well researched, and – rather predictably – made the movie even more enjoyable to (re)watch after reading
May 7, 2024
As a lover of the play and film, I was excited to learn of this book's release. The fact that it covered Albee's youth and life leading up to the writing of the play I found quite interesting, having previously known only that Albee led a rather closeted life. Publicly, this was true but in real time it turns out that he was rather open within the NYC circles in which he traveled.
Learning more about the original Broadway production of the play and the machinations behind the filming of the movie version was rather riveting and, as one would suspect, almost as dramatic as the play/film itself. I always wondered how Mike Nichols managed to score the title as his film directorial debut and this is quite well documented. One of the most interesting sources utilized for this book is the daily dictaphone diaries kept by producer/scriptwriter Ernest Lehman during filming. It offers the reader a completely different point of view beyond whatever gossip has been relied upon previously.
Gefter's style is at times heavy-handed but overall involving and moves along quickly. There are a few line items that for some reason he's chosen to repeat, at times verbatim, that I found momentarily irritating. It feels as if he thought his readers would so quickly forget details they'd read only pages earlier. These instances are rare but still stuck in my head.
The author does take the time to put all aspects of the story into succinct, historical perspective as the narrative moves forward thus giving the reader further depth by which to consider just how important and groundbreaking Albee's play truly was within it's own time.
For those wondering if there are any newer juicy tidbits revealed, there are. Some of them are quite unexpected satisfying the salacious while also giving great insight into the evolution of this American classic.
Learning more about the original Broadway production of the play and the machinations behind the filming of the movie version was rather riveting and, as one would suspect, almost as dramatic as the play/film itself. I always wondered how Mike Nichols managed to score the title as his film directorial debut and this is quite well documented. One of the most interesting sources utilized for this book is the daily dictaphone diaries kept by producer/scriptwriter Ernest Lehman during filming. It offers the reader a completely different point of view beyond whatever gossip has been relied upon previously.
Gefter's style is at times heavy-handed but overall involving and moves along quickly. There are a few line items that for some reason he's chosen to repeat, at times verbatim, that I found momentarily irritating. It feels as if he thought his readers would so quickly forget details they'd read only pages earlier. These instances are rare but still stuck in my head.
The author does take the time to put all aspects of the story into succinct, historical perspective as the narrative moves forward thus giving the reader further depth by which to consider just how important and groundbreaking Albee's play truly was within it's own time.
For those wondering if there are any newer juicy tidbits revealed, there are. Some of them are quite unexpected satisfying the salacious while also giving great insight into the evolution of this American classic.
April 5, 2024
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book because my level of fascination with everything to do with the movie -- based on the play by Edward Albee -- matches that of the author Philip Gefter. I am equally fascinated with Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton and have read everything there is to read by them and about them, and I consider "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" the best film they did together. When I was a freshman at Smith, I remember walking by the house on campus where some of the exterior "action" in the movie was filmed and loving the fact that they had trod those boards only eleven years prior to my arrival. Gefter deftly writes about Edward Albee's life and his birthing of the play that starred Uta Hagen as Martha and weaves in all the related who's-whos (producers, etc.) that went into creating the film. Particularly interesting is the portrait of Mike Nichols, which adds to the intelligence on him in the recent biography by Mark Harris through interviews with the late director as well as with Gloria Steinem about him and who was a love interest at the time that "Virginia Woolf" was being conceived as a film project; she was the one who suggested "Smith College" as a location. At the end of the "Cocktails" book, Gefter includes a reminiscence by Mike Nichols about how "green" he had been as a first-time film director and how he wouldn't have filmed "on location" in Northampton, Massachusetts if he knew then what he knew more recently. All in all, I found "Cocktails" a very satisfying read, though Gefter goes on and on about marriage as a subject of the film a bit more than is necessary. I highly recommend the book to any fans of Albee, Nichols, and "the Burtons."
July 1, 2024
Coming so soon after the burlesque that is Erotic Vagrancy, this book is bound to provoke interest in those that have read Roger Lewis, focusing as it does on what was Burton and Taylor's best film together, 'Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf'. There couldn't be a greater contrast though between Lewis's theatrical exhibitionism and intellectual bravura and the dutiful step by step plodding of Gefter. The best one can say is that Gefter has assembled every source he can find and marshalled them in a workmanlike way, so lots of not uninteresting background and context are provided and there is bound to be something that the more casual audience of the play and film were not previously aware of. But there is not a shred of insight. Worst of all is a tedious, long Epilogue which reflects on other films about marriage which frankly reads as if the author was told he needed to pad the length of the book out a bit.
Amusingly I see from the Amazon website copy for this book that the Daily Mail of all publications asked Lewis to review it. Although it would have been tempting to see how the Lewis style was (un)accommodated by the presumably 200 word limit which is all the average Mail reader would be able to absorb, I haven't succumbed. So I can't tell whether the 'well researched' quotation highlighted by Amazon is the summit of the postive feelings Lewis might have had. He definitely won't have been worried by to the extent to which Gefter's book is likely to rival his own magnum opus though.
I listened to some of the audiobook as part of an experiment into how well Amazon's Kindle/Audible syncing works. Very well it turns out. Alexa Morden's utterly unsubtle reading does nothing for Gefter's prose however.
Amusingly I see from the Amazon website copy for this book that the Daily Mail of all publications asked Lewis to review it. Although it would have been tempting to see how the Lewis style was (un)accommodated by the presumably 200 word limit which is all the average Mail reader would be able to absorb, I haven't succumbed. So I can't tell whether the 'well researched' quotation highlighted by Amazon is the summit of the postive feelings Lewis might have had. He definitely won't have been worried by to the extent to which Gefter's book is likely to rival his own magnum opus though.
I listened to some of the audiobook as part of an experiment into how well Amazon's Kindle/Audible syncing works. Very well it turns out. Alexa Morden's utterly unsubtle reading does nothing for Gefter's prose however.
March 15, 2024
This is a book about the making of a movie about a play. That story is mostly interesting enough to overcome the author's several limitations.
Philip Gefter has done a lot of research and offers much insight into the New York and Hollywood of the early to mid 1960s, as well as the personalities of various stars and movie makers.
Director Mike Nichols was a genius and a Machiavellian bastard. Star Elizabeth Taylor was talented, gorgeous and a huge Diva.
Standards of propriety in entertainment were much different than they are today. There were industry censors and even Catholic censors (?!) who had to be appeased by the film makers.
I confess to holding an unpopular opinion about the movie "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?". I found the movie very hard to watch, without finding it brilliant and insightful, as author Philip Gefter and many critics do.
Two hours of two people yelling drunkenly at each other, in front of guests, while they try their best to degrade their spouses, isn't something I found enlightening, nor entertaining.
Apparently, nobody had put nasty marital jousting in screen before Mike Nichols made the 1966 movie about Edward Albee's 1962 play of the same name. While it was praised for this novelty and its supposed realism, the movie included virtually no change of tone, no humour and very few moments suggesting anything more than an imminent breakup for this fictional couple whose relationship is a cycle of pure resentment, attack and revenge.
Gefter describes watching the movie dozens of times for its allegedly piercing insights, while I found no insight in the movie and barely got through one viewing.
If you, like Gefter, absolutely adored the movie or the play on which it was based, you'll probably enjoy this book more than I did.
As a writer, Philip Gefter is the weak link in this book. His observations about marriage and the movie's supposed insights were unconvincing to me and his phrases often clunky.
Gefter misuses a lot of English words (malapropisms) and leans on psycho-jargon, jamming in European words like gestalt, zeitgeist and manqué wherever he can. He is an expert on photography and a biographer of photographers, but he's not a great writer.
That said, the giant personalities involved in the movie and the snapshot of puritanical, mid 1960's US culture, just before the beginning of the tune in , drop out era, made the read worthwhile.
I will definitely seek more information about Mike Nichols as a result of this book. I will watch more movies directed by Nichols and movies starring Taylor and Burton, but I won't be reading more books by Gefter.
Philip Gefter has done a lot of research and offers much insight into the New York and Hollywood of the early to mid 1960s, as well as the personalities of various stars and movie makers.
Director Mike Nichols was a genius and a Machiavellian bastard. Star Elizabeth Taylor was talented, gorgeous and a huge Diva.
Standards of propriety in entertainment were much different than they are today. There were industry censors and even Catholic censors (?!) who had to be appeased by the film makers.
I confess to holding an unpopular opinion about the movie "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?". I found the movie very hard to watch, without finding it brilliant and insightful, as author Philip Gefter and many critics do.
Two hours of two people yelling drunkenly at each other, in front of guests, while they try their best to degrade their spouses, isn't something I found enlightening, nor entertaining.
Apparently, nobody had put nasty marital jousting in screen before Mike Nichols made the 1966 movie about Edward Albee's 1962 play of the same name. While it was praised for this novelty and its supposed realism, the movie included virtually no change of tone, no humour and very few moments suggesting anything more than an imminent breakup for this fictional couple whose relationship is a cycle of pure resentment, attack and revenge.
Gefter describes watching the movie dozens of times for its allegedly piercing insights, while I found no insight in the movie and barely got through one viewing.
If you, like Gefter, absolutely adored the movie or the play on which it was based, you'll probably enjoy this book more than I did.
As a writer, Philip Gefter is the weak link in this book. His observations about marriage and the movie's supposed insights were unconvincing to me and his phrases often clunky.
Gefter misuses a lot of English words (malapropisms) and leans on psycho-jargon, jamming in European words like gestalt, zeitgeist and manqué wherever he can. He is an expert on photography and a biographer of photographers, but he's not a great writer.
That said, the giant personalities involved in the movie and the snapshot of puritanical, mid 1960's US culture, just before the beginning of the tune in , drop out era, made the read worthwhile.
I will definitely seek more information about Mike Nichols as a result of this book. I will watch more movies directed by Nichols and movies starring Taylor and Burton, but I won't be reading more books by Gefter.
April 21, 2024
I hadn't seen the movie, and I definitely hadn't seen the play. But I watched Elizabeth and Richard, George and Martha have at it, brilliantly, a quarter of the way into Philip Gefter's deep dive into the making of the film. It starts out with the stage version's genesis, and the background into Edward Albee, and his storied social circle, is fascinating. The narratives behind the making of any classic film have automatic appeal, a revealing of the scaffolding behind the construction. While one might expect there to be some real juicy tidbits, the stories behind this one are not exactly salacious. Mike Nichols comes across as brilliant and youthfully arrogant. Ernest Lehman is portrayed as the mensch in charge, though prone to some ego bruising. Burton seems more troublesome than Taylor, though they are a handful as a team. The book is well oiled and researched, though I found myself wondering just why it existed. Clearly it is out of the author's professed love of the material, but it's place in contemporary culture seems marginal. The lengthy descriptions of scenes can sometimes seem like padding, and the last chapter on the legacy and depictions of marriage in subsequent films feel superfluous. And there's something a little misleading about the term 'cocktails' in the title, as in the film, the characters take their copious belts of booze straight. That's a quibble. I'd be happy to have taken a drink with them, and the tale is the next best thing.
December 15, 2023
I have received an ARC via NetGalley. This has not affected my voluntary review.
As a matter of whether or not this book lives up to its title, I have to admit it only really looks at two-thirds of the subtitle, and marriage tends to be left out in the cold. Considering how the author and Albee appear to feel about it, can you blame them?
Albee was a gay man with contentious, cold parents. No wonder he had a low opinion of marriage. However, it doesn't follow that all of American couples were hypocritical if they looked happy, which seems to be the argument of the author. I'll agree the 1950s happy-clappy propaganda was overly optimistic about everybody's mental state, but I hardly think that the average American heterosexual couple was cruel, alcoholic and promiscuous; or even deeply unhappy.
That being said, the movie-making descriptions and behind-the-scenes drama have more-than fulfilled the promise of cocktails with George and Martha, or Dick and Liz. I didn't particularly care for the play, or the movie, but reading this book made me want to check them both out again. I think that means the author did a fairly fine job.
As a matter of whether or not this book lives up to its title, I have to admit it only really looks at two-thirds of the subtitle, and marriage tends to be left out in the cold. Considering how the author and Albee appear to feel about it, can you blame them?
Albee was a gay man with contentious, cold parents. No wonder he had a low opinion of marriage. However, it doesn't follow that all of American couples were hypocritical if they looked happy, which seems to be the argument of the author. I'll agree the 1950s happy-clappy propaganda was overly optimistic about everybody's mental state, but I hardly think that the average American heterosexual couple was cruel, alcoholic and promiscuous; or even deeply unhappy.
That being said, the movie-making descriptions and behind-the-scenes drama have more-than fulfilled the promise of cocktails with George and Martha, or Dick and Liz. I didn't particularly care for the play, or the movie, but reading this book made me want to check them both out again. I think that means the author did a fairly fine job.
April 3, 2024
One of the best books I’ve read so far this year. Philip Gefter contextualizes Edward Albee’s play and Mike Nichols’s movie with midcentury art, literature, and culture, but most particularly with trends in marriage and women’s “problem with no name.” He teases out the complexity of the play and particularly Uta Hagen’s and Elizabeth Taylor’s interpretation of Martha and her “discontent.” How did Edward Albee, a young gay playwright, bring such depth and understanding to the complexity of the marriage between a washed-up history professor and a wife whose entire being is wrapped up in his failures? Gefter suggests that Albee’s keen observations of his own adoptive family and the bohemians around him created the extraordinary foundation for actors, directors, audiences to think through their own experiences. Even Mike Nichols’ egotism, low expectations of Liz Taylor, and Richard Burton’s insecurities could not damage the play. It is still a stunning movie to watch, with George and Martha’s tortured games as depicted in Haskell Wexler’s rich black-and-white film, and Gefter’s book provides the insights that make it even richer.
July 10, 2024
“George, fix those kids a drink.” My favorite line in the play (garbled no doubt in memory).
This book was a gift, not something I’d have picked up for myself – so a double surprise in a way. I enjoyed it throughout. Details about the reclusive Edward Albee and the 1950s art scene in the Village, then the play’s debut on Broadway, then on to the celebrated movie directed by Mike Nichols starring Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor. Shattering taboos at the time, the play is now a period piece, still delectable for its razor-sharp dialogue, as savage and witty as the plays of Oscar Wilde or Joe Orton. Gefter moves us swiftly through mounds of historical anecdote and concludes with a surprising meditation on marriage in modern film. Some of it is laugh-out-loud funny and even at its slow points Gefter kept me interested.
One for fans and film buffs obviously. Old Hollywood etc. You know who you are.
Honey:
Oh, I don’t know, a little brandy maybe. “Never mix, never worry!”
George:
Martha? Rubbing alcohol for you?
Martha:
Sure! “Never mix, never worry!”
This book was a gift, not something I’d have picked up for myself – so a double surprise in a way. I enjoyed it throughout. Details about the reclusive Edward Albee and the 1950s art scene in the Village, then the play’s debut on Broadway, then on to the celebrated movie directed by Mike Nichols starring Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor. Shattering taboos at the time, the play is now a period piece, still delectable for its razor-sharp dialogue, as savage and witty as the plays of Oscar Wilde or Joe Orton. Gefter moves us swiftly through mounds of historical anecdote and concludes with a surprising meditation on marriage in modern film. Some of it is laugh-out-loud funny and even at its slow points Gefter kept me interested.
One for fans and film buffs obviously. Old Hollywood etc. You know who you are.
Honey:
Oh, I don’t know, a little brandy maybe. “Never mix, never worry!”
George:
Martha? Rubbing alcohol for you?
Martha:
Sure! “Never mix, never worry!”
September 7, 2024
Do you want the behind the scenes details on the making of WAOVW? Then read this book, but I recommend seeing the movie first.
The author, Philip Gefter, writes a star-laced account of the making of the intense movie, starting with Albee's upbringing concluding with Elizabeth's Taylor's absence from the Oscar ceremony where she won the Best Actress award for her performance in the movie. In the final chapter, the author reviews subsequent movies that deal with marriage tension reflecting back to Who's Afraid in comparison.
In the beginning of a few chapters, the author includes a few 25 cent words which I had to look up, but no worries, he quickly reverts to standard english which most of us can understand.
I don't want to speculate on the number of names dropped in the first half of the book, just know that you don't have to remember every star mentioned unless you somehow find yourself facing a quiz in which case it might be necessary to jot down a few notes.
Overall, I liked reading this account, learning not only about WAOVW but also about how movies made in the 1960s were produced.
The author, Philip Gefter, writes a star-laced account of the making of the intense movie, starting with Albee's upbringing concluding with Elizabeth's Taylor's absence from the Oscar ceremony where she won the Best Actress award for her performance in the movie. In the final chapter, the author reviews subsequent movies that deal with marriage tension reflecting back to Who's Afraid in comparison.
In the beginning of a few chapters, the author includes a few 25 cent words which I had to look up, but no worries, he quickly reverts to standard english which most of us can understand.
I don't want to speculate on the number of names dropped in the first half of the book, just know that you don't have to remember every star mentioned unless you somehow find yourself facing a quiz in which case it might be necessary to jot down a few notes.
Overall, I liked reading this account, learning not only about WAOVW but also about how movies made in the 1960s were produced.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 90 reviews