Critique+of+Hedda+Gabler

//Hedda Gabler// Critique Soundarya Kanthimathinathan The University of Georgia’s production of //Hedda Gabler// was a modern twist on the original 1890s realistic play. As someone who had taken up until AP 3-D Design in high school, my first impression of the set walking into the play was that it looked like a contemporary art piece. Often in contemporary art, artists merge together various objects to create one unified image. Furthermore, a common way to approach such art is minimalism which seemed to be how this set was designed. In sharp contrast to the set of //Clybourne Park//, this set had only objects which provided a literal or symbolic use to the play. Thus, the set was one of my favorite parts of the play because of the way it aided the play itself. For example, I noticed how Hedda stuck a red heart card on the mirror and later Ejlert took it from there symbolizing how Hedda is still interested in Ejlert (which is what I interpreted from the play considering that she becomes highly concerned every time Thea seems to have an upper hand on him). Another aspect of the set usage which I really liked is the way the characters would look at themselves in the mirrors during the emotionally intense scenes. For instance, when Tesman is stressed out about the manuscript, he wipes his face and looks into the mirror. Hence, this action serves as a clear signal of introspection or slowing down of action to move the focus towards the characters’ internal conflicts.
 * On the whole your review of the production is rational and is supported. You appear to be trying to find reasons for some of the actions and staging. Sometimes interpretations of such a work can confuse rather than clarify our understanding. I do think you might have been more severe in your criticism. Don't be afraid to express your opinion, even if it is negative and strong. Nothing is ever perfect and everything may be improved. I trust you will continue to develop your taste and a rational judgement. **
 * A **

Although I do not know if this is a fault of the playwright or the actors, something I disliked about the acting was the way every character was portrayed somewhat one-dimensionally and their feelings were shown very quickly rather than being treated as “real feelings.” An example of this is when Hedda upsets Mrs. Elvsted, she immediately sobs. When Tesman hears he could still be promoted, his face immediately lights up. It is as if the feelings in this play have an “on” and “off” button rather than a natural progression. However, I did really like the Aunt’s character because she was more subtle. While Tesman was one extreme and Hedda was another, it was as if she was rooted in reality and she would react to what Hedda said realistically. While Hedda was blinded by her boredom and desire to control others’ destiny, Tesman was blinded by his desire to please Hedda; the Aunt was not blinded by such feelings (as she herself claimed she deals with the grief of her sister’s passing well). Apart from this, I believe the actors executed the action, the blocking, effectively. The judge sharply clasped Hedda's throat, Mrs. Elvsted's deferent body language around Hedda was fitting to promote Hedda's manipulative personality. Tesman's excitement was obviously shown when he would walk or run around the stage, and so on.

In treatment of props, the play was also very modern. Mrs. Elvsted used her cell phone to show that work was saved. Lovborg’s manuscript was saved on an iPad. The characters of the play also wore modern clothing. For example, the Aunt character had a nose ring. Ejlert had green highlights. I thought all of these elements took away from the advancement of the play’s overall image. The Aunt’s role was that of a caring, helpful, yet realistic and strong woman. Her clothing, her hat, and her bag along with her personality suggested a warm homeliness, but her nose ring was the one element which intruded this image of her. Next, Ejlert was a man after women. His trench coat, quirky and jittery body language, and green hair did not match up with a forthright man after multiple women. Rather, he came off as more awkward an experimental rather than bold. Lastly, the use of technology rather than print took away from the feeling of the scenes, in my opinion. If one sees a manuscript with hundreds of pages literally burned down, he or she can easily imagine the hours of effort which it took to write it. However, a small black iPad, while one does cringe if it is broken with a hammer, seems unfortunate but not painful to watch it break as it does not seem to be full of soul as a handwritten draft may seem. However, I believe the attire which Hedda, Tesman, and the judge wore did indeed suit their characters. Tesman is a hopeful profession in the academic field, and he did wear a suit. Hedda is a charming lady, and she wore well-groomed clothing, and the judge is a dominant man and he wore a suit.

I also really liked the sound element incorporated in the play. I thought it aided to the emotional involvement of the audience, and it played effectively in foreshadowing. The second act, for example, began with eerie music foreshadowing the darker outcome of it as opposed to the first. Each time an actor was revealed behind a curtain as dead, there was a thundering boom that accompanied the colored lighting to reveal the character. This really helped in dramatizing and drawing attention to the end of the play. I believe the play reached a type of catharsis where those who wronged others in an unfair way (Hedda being dishonest with Tesman who did so much for her, Lovborg wanting to cheat on Mrs. Elvsted through Hedda; however, the judge thought to hold power only through the law and not unfairly) passed away, and the booming sound sort of signaled this catharsis. The overall lighting was a more constant element in the play where several large lights were used to brighten the scene. This worked well to simply serve for visibility.

A directing choice I loved was the way that characters not within a scene would sit right outside the area and at times react to the scene. At first, it was very intriguing when the first character, the judge, sat in a chair and stared at the scene almost like a doll. This captured my interest immediately. Later on in the play, the judge and Tesman stood up to laugh at parts of the scene; then, they sat back down in their chairs. I felt that this created a sort of metanarrative where characters came as their personality but not with their memory to react to parts of the story which they were not a part of. Therefore, it increased the audience’s engagement in the play.

Overall, I enjoyed this play on an intellectual level. The set, the direction, the characters, the plot, and the modernization piqued my interest very much. However, the play did not resonate with me on an emotional or personal level because of the one-dimensionality of the characters and the quickness of their emotional expression. If the characters’ struggles were more naturally expressed, I would be able to connect with it more. However, I did enjoy watching Hedda’s character unfold. I thought her part was played brilliantly because she was playful, manipulative, reactive at times yet passive at times, would put on a show yet be more of herself around the judge, and she had a wide range of actions which made her believable. While this is in part because she is a dynamic character and some of the background characters could be perceived as more static, I believe this play lent itself well to allowing all of the characters to be dynamic. The play was solely action and relationship based; hence, each character is sort of a protagonist. In Clybourne Park, each character had a more fleshed out sense to himself or herself which allowed me to be engaged with it personally, but this play did not. Overall, I would recommend watching this play to see a unique interpretation, but it is not one of my favorites since I did not connect with it entirely.