Critique+for+Hedda+Gabler


 * This was a better effort than your previous review but many of your points were not very original because you turned in your work after the review in class. Unfortunately, you have been tardy in turning in material for both reviews when I specifically wanted you to do what everyone else was required to do. Thus your grade was lowered accordingly.**


 * B**

In the UGA performing arts play of //Hedda// Gabler, director Paolino utilizes the casting, costume, and props to create a very stylized, theatrical play. However, the scripting of the play suggests a more realistic approach. This divergence between the realism inherent in the scripting and the theatrical approach of the play confuses the audience by making certain crucial plot points difficult to decipher, which in turn makes it more difficult for the audience to suspend disbelief.

People rely on sight more than any other sense to interpret the world around them, so it is important to choose actors based on how their appearance fits the mold of their character’s personality. However, Paolino ignored the body type and appearance of certain actors when casting certain roles, which left the audience confused. The Aunt’s nosering and half shaven head were not typical in the late 1800’s, nor did they serve any theatrical effect. Given Luvborg’s many escapades with different women, he should be seen by the audience as a womanizer, which would call for a very masculine looking actor; however, Luvborg’s small body type and green hair causes the audience (**me?**) to view him as feminine. Hedda was attracted to Luvborg because of his masculine refusal to follow rules, yet this attraction is almost lost on the audience if they see Luvborg as feminine. Paolino’s casting decision for Luvborg focused more on developing Luvborg’s borderline insanity – Luvborg had green hair and also moved and spoke very erratically. Had Paolino cast the judge as Luvborg, dyed the new Luvborg’s hair green, and told the new Luvborg to walk and talk eratically, he could have characterized Luvborg as almost mad without sacrificing his masculinity. (**this point about possible recasting choices was raised by me in the review of the show in class. I'm not sure that you came to this conclusion yourself before the class discussion.**)

Similarly, the actor who played Luvborg, Geoff Newell, was better suited for the judge. The judge’s despicable exertions of his power over Hedda form the image of a power hungry rat in audience members’ minds. For this reason, the judge should have possessed the lanky body type and creepy body movements of Geoff Newell, not the formal, collected posture and speech of Nathan Hutto, who played judge Brack. By neglecting to highlight the villainous nature of the judge, the audience does not fully understand why the judge gloated about his power over Hedda.

The exceptional acting in Paolino’s production masked some of the casting errors to make the play more understandable to the audience. The Aunt’s accent helped set the time period, while the husband’s childlike behavior – he was very enthusiastic and jumpy, while his body stature resembled that of a child – conveyed his ignorance of Hedda’s dark side. The actors also used their actions and positions on stage as a vehicle to communicate their power over other characters to the audience. The judge grabbed Hedda’s hair in the final scene to show he was the top dog and Mrs. Elvstead walked with a slight hunchback towards the end to reflect her defeated, powerless attitude. This exceptional acting made the setting, George Tesman’s actions, and the characters power over each other more believable to the audience.

As the play centers on Hedda’s sociopathic nature, it is crucial that the actor playing Hedda seeks to develop this nature through their actions and speech. Jessica Moore, the actor who played Hedda, delivered her lines with a very apathetic tone to create this sociopathic nature. Jessica’s starling behavior differentiated Hedda from the typical late 1800’s female. She stepped on cards, rode a trunk, and caressed herself while on top the trunk, which indicated to the audience that something was off in Hedda’s mind. The audience connects these strange behaviors with her strange, sociopathic nature, and blames the strange behavior on her antisocial personality. Though the casting errors within the play generated much confusion among the audience, the terrific acting, especially on the part of Hedda, helped remedy some, but not all of this confusion.

In addition to the casting, the set generated much puzzlement among the audience; however, similar to the acting in the play, the lighting helped to balance some of the confusion arising from the set. The many mirrors along the wall, the presence of the characters who were not in the action at that moment in a semicircle around the set, the thousands of books and suitcases, and the small venue made the stage feel cluttered. It is difficult to infer from all the pieces in the set that the play occurs in the guest room of Tesman’s house. No elements typical of a guest room are present. Trunks were used for couches and tables, there were mirrors all along the wall, and mannequins everywhere, which only confused the audience. The presence of the books to symbolize Tesman’s academic career and the suitcases to symbolize the new move were a nice touch; however, they should have been more neatly arranged, similar to how they would be if they were in the guest room of a house – stacked and out of the way.

Paolino takes this symbolism a step further by using the mirrors and having the actors not currently involved in the action sitting in a semicircle around the stage. The mirrors along the wall and the characters in a semicircle are meant to represent society’s omniscient and domineering presence, which serve to remind Hedda that she is always powerless to society’s control. Throughout the play Hedda defies society’s conventions because she longs to break free from their power over her. This is why she supported and loved Luvborg’s rebellious alcoholic nature. However, the symbolism of the semicircle of characters and the mirrors is lost on an audience who is just struggling to understand the plot points. For this reason, the many props and mirrors in the set overwhelm and further confuse them. Fortunately, the lighting helped focus the audience’s attention within the confines of the cluttered set throughout the play. The light used on Hedda when she shot herself helped draw attention towards her while she was behind the curtain. As red symbolizes blood, this choice of lighting also put the image of blood in the audiences mind. Paolino’s theatrical approach to //Hedda Gabler// forced him to employ a set with too much symbolism, which detracted from the realistic feel of the set and caused much confusion within the audience.

Old plays are sometimes cast in a modern setting (when given the copyright permission) to make the play more relatable to the audience. Paolino attempts to give //Hedda Gabler// a modern feel, while also retaining many elements of the original time period. The actors used iPads as manuscripts with some actors dressed in a modern style with modern haircuts to give the play a modern feel. Conversely, some actors dressed according to the time period (late 1800s) and the Aunt talked in an accent typical of the time period. This lack of clarity in the time period of the play only befuddled audience members.

The theatrical approach employed by Paolino cleverly developed certain subtle aspects of the play, but only through sacrificing the clarity of other portions of play. For example, the set carried deep symbolism, yet created such a mess on stage that the audience could not infer where the play took place. Paolino’s play served as evidence that the density of the plot in //Hedda Gabler// creates a necessity for a realistic production.