RGHeddaGabler


 * Your review of the production is fine and you picked up on some of the bewildering aspects of the show that raised more questions than they answered. I get the feeling that you might have been more harsh in your criticism at times but tempered your reaction for some reason. I urge you to be bold when you are asked to express your opinions. Theatre people need to know areas that they likely should improve. Expressions from audiences help them to shape future ideas. So be bold next time. OK? **
 * A **

Hedda Gabler – Critique  Hedda Gabler is an interesting play that left me perplexed at the end of it. The character of Hedda is quite complex and throughout the play remains difficult to understand. As the plot unfolds we do get more and more of who Hedda is and what her motives are, but there many other aspects of the play such as the scenery and the staging of the other characters that I found confusing and distracting. In all I think the play is an interesting commentary on women and the role they are supposed to play within in society, but the very modern and minimalistic portrayal of the play seemed to be a bit awkward and ill fitting to the subject matter and play as a whole.  I think the set was the most confusing and interesting part of the play. There were floating mirrors, long sheer curtains, naked mannequins and random suitcases that seemed to double as furniture strewn about. The audience was required to imagine much of the setting and the scenery, leaving the interior of Hedda and Tesman’s house up for interpretation. Some of the dialogue did direct the audience member on what types of things to imagine, such as the suggestion of a piano in the room, but on the whole the set seemed to be made up more of random objects rather than objects that added to the play. Often the actors who were not on the stage would sit behind the sheer curtains and sometimes they would interact with those who were on the stage. This was confusing in that it made the set seem without boundaries or walls, and it gave these interactions between the actors a sort of ghost-like feel. However, upon further reflection of the play and its themes perhaps this wall-less feel was intentional as the play was very much about finally facing internal emotions and feelings and for Hedda letting down her internal walls to see that she really wants nothing to do with the life she has made for herself. I am still not entirely sure what purpose the mirrors and the mannequins served. Perhaps symbols of physical and untrue appearances that don’t actually reflect what is really going on. Maybe the mirrors were indicative of Hedda’s narcissism in that she reflected her wants and desires into all those surrounding her. Though I do see some purpose for the stylized minimalistic approach to the set design, I still feel that it just in general lacking and left me with many questions that I might not have otherwise had.  In the same vein as that of the setting, the costumes and props were also confusing as the story of the play seemed to be set in a much older time period than today. Yet, the actors would use modern day technology such as phones and Ipads and wore clothing not much different from the clothing of now. This severely contradicted with some the more period specific dialogue indicators throughout the play such as not letting a woman walk home alone, or a woman losing her singular identity once entered into a marriage as was at hinted many times throughout the play towards Hedda, as well as the odd and highly formal ways in which the men would talk to the women, the men to each other, and women to each other, seeming to never once break social etiquette. These smaller details led me think that the contradictions were a result of lack of props rather than intentional use for symbolic purposes. In addition, certain props reappeared throughout the play such as the deck of cards, Hedda’s gun and Aunt Julia’s hat. The bit where Hedda plays with the Deck of cards while she schemes with Judge was a particularly interesting scene I thought, and it seemed to be directed well. Hedda’s throwing of the cards was both intentional and unintentional, playful and serious, funny and almost scary at the same time. It was an action full of contradictions, much like the play itself, and I think it was at this moment that the audience began to understand just what type of woman Hedda is.  Though I was thrown off a bit by the minimal set and time period contradictions, the dialogue of the play and the acting were both very good. The play portrayed the inner struggle of a woman forced to fit into the box society has designated for her in a very realistic yet dramatic manner. I thought the character of Hedda Gabler was done very well, though she may have been meant to be the antagonist of the play, I felt myself intrigued by her and also rooting for her. For much of the play she had a sort of allure that drew the audience in and kept us captivated, constantly wondering why she acted one way or why she said something in a particular manner. I also thought the character of Eilert Lovborg was done very well. His character was a bit more prone to an emotional climax as he was a reformed drunk, but nonetheless the way he portrayed a sort of suffering soul was quite good and realistic. I was also impressed at how well the characters of Hedda and Eilert played off of each other, I was really convinced that they were old lovers from the way looked at and spoke to each other. In addition the interactions between Hedda and Judge Brack were also impressive, again very convincing of them being old pals and possibly lovers as well indicative of their dialogue, facial expressions and body language towards each other. I didn’t love the characters Thea and Tesman, though both did play the role of Hedda’s ponds **(pawns?)** well, I was not particularly drawn to them for any reason, they seemed to bring less to the overall play than the others, but then again maybe that is intentional as they really are just pieces in Hedda’s game. The character of Berta was also quite complex. We get to see small portions of who she is throughout the play, at one point she mocks Hedda while she sleeps right next to her. This peek into who Berta really is versus how she is treated by Hedda throughout the play I think may be a reflection of the Hedda character. Again another woman who has been placed in a role to forever act the way society expects, only breaking free in her own time when no one else is around.  There was not much lighting or music during the play, it mostly just revolved around the dialogue and the movement of the characters in and out of the scene. The lights did change from day to night to indicate the change in time of day, and there was sound effects for the shooting of the gun and such, but other than these minor details the focus remained on the minimal set and the dialogue between the characters.  Overall I thought the play shed a very interesting light on the toll society can take on the life of a woman. It surfaced many of life’s contradictions that often go undiscussed – such as marrying for convenience or because its right, stretching oneself financially to uphold physical appearances and appease material want and doing what society expects instead of what the individual wants. We see this last theme unfurl within the relationship between Hedda and Eilert as Hedda seems to be projecting onto Eilert what she can’t do for herself. We find that Hedda isn’t be happy unless she is in control throughout the play, this is seen in pretty much all of her relationships. Once she loses the control over Eilert and the Judge, almost simultaneously, she can no longer live as she expected to. An interesting commentary on how women of this supposed time period might be pushed to cope with their boredom and unhappiness, as if there is no other way out.