Three Tall Women --by Edward Albee (1994)

Description
Albee's three-person show centers on one woman at three ages in her life.

A is the 92-year-old version.
B is the 52-year-old version.
C is the 26-year-old version.

Making a brief appearance in Act Two is her son who has abandoned her in his youth.

The play is set in A's bedroom wherein B takes care of her. A reminisces while B encourages and C confronts. A shares stories of her failed relationships with her husband, "the penguin," and her son, "The Boy". C states that she will not turn into A. Act 1 ends with A having a stroke. Spoiler, I know.

Act 2 calls for a mannequin to take A's place in the bed. This gives permission for A to speak with A and B more clearly. A and B contextualize their life to C so that C can understand why A and B are the way they are. It's a cautionary, yet fated tale.

The play is heavily autobiographical wherein the role of "The Boy" who doesn't speak in the play portrays Albee. Although the play is autobiographical, Albee shifts the focus away from himself. 

The play is being revived this Spring in NYC with Glenda Jackson, Laurie Metcalf, and Alison Pill. It will be directed by Joe Mantello. Its relevance is unquestionable, and I imagine the audiences who see the show will be shaken, inspired, and haunted.

Candid Reactions

• Albee prevents interpreters from guessing too much about the influence his own relationships had on the play. I thank him for that. Too often critics can read too far into a minimal autobiographical connection. Albee reminds the reader that all works are autobiographical. He is mindful of his consciousness -- punny, I know. 
• Don't you just love Albee for naming his characters A, B, and C? I bet this helped him create more objectivity in his approach to writing these characters. The lettered names also dehumanize the characters which allow us to focus solely on their actions and attitudes without growing to attached to them. By dehumanizing the characters, Albee allows the reader to examine their humanity more methodically. He is so good. 
• How much time is "some silence"?
• I just love his stage directions. So short, so revealing. 
• The disparity between B and C is major. B does not like how C corrects and challenges A. B then corrects and challenges C. Albee develops a pattern in these interactions to perhaps portray how our older selves can reflect on how the younger versions of ourselves have influenced us. It reminds me of Cisneros' "Eleven" and Marquez's 100 Years of Solitude. 
• How can an actress cry on demand so early into a show with such little plot demanding it?
• The stage directions continue to contextualize the desires of each character. 
• C pities A's health, and B asks for whom C pities A's health. The women are always questioning the subject at hand. They try to decipher motive and pick apart every sentence spoken. 
• Ah, yes. Impending death. Thanks for getting dark quick, Albee. 
• Their scrutiny over diction is relentless. 
• A's recollection of the "good ol' days" reminds me of . . . you guessed it . . . Amanda Wingfield in The Glass Menagerie. 
• A and C are more similar than they think. 
• A's insistence on her independence reminds me of Kohlberg's conflicts. 
• Albee slips in humor at just the right times to give the audience relief both emotionally and mentally. 
• A defines herself as tall. She is scared and says, "I've shrunk! I'm not tall! I used to be so tall! Why have I shrunk?" (46). Her tallness reflected her sense of pride and strength. B answers her question by saying, "It happens with time: we get shorter" (46). B's understanding is devastating. 
• A wants comfort on her own terms -- is this a sign of her tallness or shortness? Discuss.
• Um, that necklace story was disturbing. 
• A seems to believe the world is against her. 
• How much did Albee intentionally pun on their names? 
• Oh, the chiasmatic stage directions!
• Gosh, the memories keep getting more awkward and uncomfortable to read. 
• The discussion of the height of their partners is engaging. 
• All of the sexual encounters and reflection carry even more weight today given the "Time's Up" initiative. 
• B's observations on why men and women cheat are interesting. A's observation on why men and women cheat on each other is bold: She states that there are several reasons women cheat (for their own personal benefits), but only one reason why men cheat (their boredom). This belief is difficult to digest (82). 
• The detachment between A and her son is heartbreaking: "We're strangers; we're curious about each other; we leave it at that" (91). 
• B's monologues near the end of the play are INSANE. Unfortunately, their utterance in today's America will resonate perhaps louder than ever. B explains to C that people "don't tell [young women] that things change -- that Prince Charming has the morals of a sewer rat, that you're supposed to live with that . . . and like it, or give the appearance of liking it" (93). 
• The damnation of men at the end of the play is far from subtle. 
• When C asks where happiness can be found, the response by B reminds me of East of Eden. B tells C, "Oh, well, we proved we were human" (99). Perfection wasn't possible and the abandonment of the pursuit of perfection led to happiness. We are not gods. We are humans. 
• Once again, Albee employs humor at just the right time. 
• There are so many haunting lines at the end of the play. For example: "Well, it's gone; all the glitter's gone" (104). Life is not all shiny. Jewelry is not always what it appears, as evidenced by A's retelling of her diamond story. 
• A's denial of everyone and C's pursuit of happiness is terrifying, and somewhat like The Last Five Years. 
• They are determined individuals!
• A's final lines are the perfect tie to the wrap the whole show.   

Top Two Aspects/Reasons for Winning
1. Abstract Environment, Clear Examination  
Albee is the only playwright who can relay profound truths of human existence by plopping three versions of the same woman into one bedroom to bicker, cry, and laugh without being fueled by a distinct plot.

To me, Albee is the cummings of the American theater. He dares to name characters A, B, and C. He focuses on humanity by eliminating the limits of reality. No clear plot is necessary. There doesn't need to be another actor to play the deceased version of A-- a mannequin will do (and do better because its presence adds to a theme directly addressed--an effect that would be lost by an actor playing the role). Albee can create truthful dialogue under the guise of lucid rambling.

Albee accepts seemingly impossible tasks for a writer and performs them with humor, bite, and purpose.
     
2. The Return of a Great and Autobiographical Influence
I would hate to think that the committee would be influenced by a playwright's history, but I can't help but think that this might have happened. Albee was famously snubbed for Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, but he continued to create insightful, probing plays. His works were heralded in his early exposure, but he soon entered a drought of appreciation. In the early 90s, critics rejoiced at his apparent "return" to impeccable playwriting. I would hate to believe, too, that the committee would be influenced by the fact that the play is notably autobiographical . . . but here I am believing that. Albee explicitly states in the Introduction that the play is autobiographical, but as objective as possible. The amazing part to me is how objective the play seems to be! His assessment and approach to the psychological distance he had with the subject at hand is simply fascinating.      

Classroom Implications
Um, no. A's recount of her husband's behavior and B's recount of her youthful affair would disqualify this work from being taught in a high school setting. The memories are graphic. However, I do know Beloved is taught in some schools.

If I were to use it in a college-level course, I would use it as a character study. Theme and narrative structure would be clear points of discussion.

Personal Takeaway
The interpretation of literary works is dynamic due to ever-changing social, cultural, political, etc. landscape.

Ranking

	Dialogue	Characters	Plot/Conflict	Symbol/Literary Devices	Overall Enjoyment	TOTAL SCORE 8.75
0	Unfollowable; unrealistic; diction does not match character	Undeveloped; does not reflect humanity	Not engaging; predictable; reader can step away from text because it isn’t gripping	Devices are apparent for cleverness and do not enhance the story	Reader has no interest in re-reading play
1	Not consistently realistic	Well-developed; most depictions reflect humanity	Semi-engaging; some unnecessary plot-points	Devices somewhat enhance story (1.5)	Reader would re-read with pleasure and reminded of work
2	Realistic; connotative; diction matches characters (1.75)	Fully-developed; depictions reflect humanity (2)	Engaging; unique; reader finds it impossible to put down text because the conflict is so gripping! (1.75)	Devices seamlessly enhance the story and provide rich interpretation	Reader would re-read the play on own volition, enthusiastically (1.75)