Broken Legs Blog

According to some, Edward Albee’s “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” is a 20th Century classic, a literary masterpiece filled with dramatic tension and thematic symbolism. Watching the Curve’s revival, directed by Cara Nolan, it is difficult to understand why. The production strives for naturalism, with Amy Jane Cook’s set design perfectly realising the living room of History academic George (Patrick Robinson) and his wife Martha (Cathy Tyson), and yet the text strays a little too far into absurdism at points that does not quite marry with the realistic portrayal. The production feels messy and unpolished (perhaps by design, although it is not clear if this is the intention), and the story is long and unengaging, with Nolan staying faithful to the original, uncut version from the 60s.

The story begins at 2am, and stretches through until dawn, as George and Martha arrive home following a party at the university, shortly followed by new friends Nick (George Kemp) and Honey (Tilly Steele), who have recently moved to the area after Nick secures a job teaching in the Biology department. The characters begin drunk, and get steadily more drunk as the play continues, with so much brandy and whiskey consumed it makes one wonder how the characters can continue drinking without collapsing. The opening act sees each character adopt a different style of drunkenness (George becomes increasingly talkative and rambling, Martha ever more confrontational and Honey straight-up delirious), which makes for some interesting dynamics, but it is a dynamic that cannot possibly be sustained. By the time we reach the third act, the drunkenness has become tiresome, and even boring, as actors stagger around the stage, slur their speech and continuously make nonsensical remarks. It doesn’t make for entertaining viewing, and one breathes a sigh of relief when it is over.

On top of this, the characters are not remotely likeable. From the outset, Robinson and Tyson are at each other’s throats, with barbed comments and snotty remarks that are perhaps intended to come across as endearing, but instead are petty and nasty. They immediately feel like a poorly matched pair, and it is difficult for us to invest in their relationship. The friction between the pair makes for uncomfortable viewing, and whilst that is not necessarily a bad thing in theatre, there is very little light amongst the dark, which can be exhausting. Robinson’s sarcastic, dry-humoured remarks provide a little comic relief in the opening scene, but as the drink keeps flowing, the humour dries up, and we are left watching incredibly arrogant characters become ever more hostile to each other. When Tyson’s Martha sets her sights on Kemp’s Nick, she strays into an even darker territory, coming across as predatory and sleazy, whilst Kemp squirms away from her advances.

Kemp and Steele are a little better matched, and their immediate introduction sets up some interesting interplay that is quickly lost as Steele’s Honey is reduced to a drunken wreck and Kemp’s Nick loses all credibility as he turns his back on his wife and finds himself in Martha’s arms instead. Steele’s Honey is portrayed incredibly childish and innocent, and she is not helped by Cook’s costume design, which sees her dressed up as a 50s Barbie doll. Her presence mostly detracts from the later scenes, as she tries to add comic relief that puts a stop to any attempts to build tension and draws very few laughs from the audience. This means that, in the final minutes of the play, where Honey is granted some more poignant moments in light of George’s revelation, it is difficult for the audience to make any sort of emotional connection – Honey has spent far too much of the runtime high as a kite for us to see her as any sort of grounded character.

Cook’s set design is one of the stronger elements of the play, providing a rich tapestry filled with piles of books, empty glasses and garish patterns. The soft textures have a way of drawing the audience in and immediately making the space feel homely and intimate. Jamie Platt’s lighting design leaves a little to be desired, with lights often dimming and brightening at seemingly random intervals that is at odds with the attempted naturalism of the rest of the piece. At times, actors seem to stumble over lines or talk over each other, in a way that feels unintentional, but is passed off as part of their character’s inebriated state. It is difficult to tell whether this is as directed, but each time is a little too prominent to go unnoticed.

The play is long, at over three and a half hours, and there is not enough plot or character development to sustain such a protracted runtime. Any attempts to build tension are squashed by long and rambling monologues that take the characters off on too many tangents. Robinson is quietly spoken and fairly subdued throughout, and cannot quite live up to the sudden outbursts that George is known for. One moment that sees George try to strangle his wife in a fit of rage is almost laughable – the personalities of the characters are not strong enough to warrant such high levels of drama.

For fans of the play, there might be a lot to like here. It remains true to the original text, and for scholars that are more in tune with the play’s themes and imagery, they are likely to find something to enjoy. It is certainly a feat of resilience for the actors, and they deserve to be applauded for that at least. This is not a play I would recommend to casual theatre-goers, and I think anyone planning to see this should be prepared for what is to come. This version may appeal to those who have studied it, and are aware of its social relevance, but for the rest of us, it’s unfortunately not exciting or engaging enough to warrant a visit.

Tom Morley, October 2025

For more information on how I decide on star ratings, see here: Star ratings – Broken Legs Blog

Review Round-up

The Guardian: Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? review – It’s safe to say other reviewers enjoyed this production a lot more than I did. The Guardian gives the show 4*, saying that ‘Albee’s fights – male v female, history v biology, fantasy v reality – are undoubtedly a knockout here’

WhatsOnStage: Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? – A similarly praise-filled review from WoS, who give the show 4* as well, and say ‘this rendition is emotionally honest and authentic, making for a difficult watch at some points, but certainly captivating at others.’

Elemental Theatre: Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? – 3* from ETC, who say that the actors ‘all bring dedication, craftsmanship and precision […] delivering an evening that’s intelligent, funny, and quietly devastating‘