Hedda Gabler - Response

Hedda Gabler by Henrik Ibsen is a classic “Problem Play” addressing the social and psychological standing of women during the late 19th century. The text depicts the post honeymoon life of our “heroine” Hedda Tesman who is anything but. We see her manipulative nature cause lots of pain and hurt. In this essay I will outline my personal feelings about the play, theatrical potential and it’s relevance today. The text does have it’s limitations and I do have some criticisms of aspects of this piece.  

The entirety of the action takes place in the Tesman’s living room (plus occasionally an adjoining side room). This closed compact setting gives a sense of claustrophobia and lets the audience feel like they are prying into an intimate affair. I also feel like Ibsen uses this to represent the small enclosed world Hedda is trapped in as a woman living during this time period. He also uses a small time scale utilizing only 36 hours of time for all the events to unfold in. I find this interesting because it demonstrates just how quickly life can become dreadful in such a short space of time.

Key Characters

• Hedda - She is the daughter of an army general, from this we can immediately infer that she was raised in an aristocratic household and would have been used to a little bit of luxury. She is very manipulative, often sarcastic/sardonic and very self serving. She feels “bored” with her life and shows a lot of “masculine” attributes that would have been odd for a woman of that time period. This includes; Playing with guns; Talking back to men; Having male companions (Brack); drinking (arguable). I believe Ibsen has written her this way to showcase the want/need for autonomy that women needed.Hedda does some very horrible things like burning Eilert’s manuscript, threatening to burn Thea’s hair, causing Eilert to kill himself and providing him the means to do so. However she is a victim of her time. If her character lived in the 21st century maybe she would have found a creative outlet to eradicate her boredom.

• George - I’m going to be honest; I do not like George. I feel that he is simply a vehicle to show off Hedda’s conniving nature. No offense to Ibsen but George’s characterisation is 2-dimensional at best, and what personality traits he does posses are just plain annoying. Why does he say “no?” at the end of every sentence? I guess this could have been done to indicate his constant need for approval and by ending his dialogue with a question could highlight his weakness via speech. George’s character is very naive and unaware of Hedda taking advantage of him but he has good intentions. He seems to have a constant state of tunnel vision; Unawares of all the things that are going on around him. All he can really see is his work, even when his wife takes her own life.

• Thea - In my opinion she is one big contradiction. She is brave for leaving behind her husband and unfortunate situation but cowardly for not telling Eilert how she really feels. She is clever because she helped write Eilert book but is equally brainless for sleeping in the same house as a woman who just said she was “going to burn your hair after all”. She is comforms to many 19th century social standards of a woman but also breaks quite a few conventions throughout the play. She is an interesting character but someone could easily fall into the trap of playing her as a stereotype.

• Eilert - After Hedda he is the most interesting character in my opinion. He is clever and  enigmatic with clear objectives and things he wishes to achieve. You can tell that there’s a lot going on under the surface. After being in public disgrace following alcohol related scandals however with Thea’s aid he manages to reform himself, write a revered book and start working on his next creation. Eilert had so much going for him but unfortunately he is still human and allows himself to be corrupted by Hedda. I guess that what makes his death even more tragic. Hedda wanted to force him to end himself beautifully but instead he dies in a grotesque manner ruining her dreams. I have a lot of empathy for this character as he is a victim of circumstance. This character is brimming with theatrical potential and can be played in a variety of ways; strong or weak Eilert will have a stage presence.

Context:

When assessing a play's content it’s always useful to look at the world that it was written in. Ibsen wrote Hedda Gabler in the late 19th Century in Norway helping to fuel an artistic renaissance in this country. A lot of his other later works examine the flaws and faults in society and the class system which was quite prominent issue during this time period (arguably still is). I find this text proto-feminist and puts women’s role in society under the microscope. In Norway in the late 1800’s females were expected to be housewifes and nothing more. No voting, no filing for divorce and no taking out loans without a man’s permission. The literature that was written for women at this time was usually about the conquest of finding a husband and being content. Such writers include Marie Wexelsen, Hanna Winsnes and Anna Magdalene Thoresen. Psychologically women were being brainwashed into believing that’s all life should give them and to be happy with their lot. Some women though were not just going to take this lying down moreover during this a period of “first-wave feminism was born. Hedda Gabler definitely breaks the convention by a showing a women that’s not looking for love in the slightest, rather autonomy and freedom from boredom.

Relevance

Why should we study a text written over 100 years ago? Because we can still apply it to life today. The social commentary Ibsen creates is one that can still be explored nowadays. Are  women still treated equally? No! Do females have certain expectations of them and can they be judged for having masculine qualities? Yes! Do we still have a class system that generates alienation between people? Definitely! Is suicide still considered beautiful by some people? Without a doubt. Many themes, questions questions examined by Ibsen still have prevalence in the world that I live.

Dramatic Potential

Upon reading I got a sense of voyeurism, like I was peering into an intimate world that I had no business being a part of. If I was to stage this myself I would use small and intimate stage space with close proxemics to the audience. The theatrical configuration can really help to create this claustrophobic atmosphere. I would use thrust with a raised platform so that the audience can feel connected to the drama but not entirely a part of it. In my head imagined it being performed somewhere like the Cockpit as opposed to the Olivier at the National. Even though there’s nothing wrong with that space I just feel like the story would be dwarfed by the massive auditorium and the small theatrical nuances would be lost. I would also love to test out chameleon casting with this piece. I would do this to represent how many different women can feel these very same emotions as Hedda and how the story is not just an isolated incident.

In conclusion I find Hedda Gabler interesting and very deep in its analytical sense; it has something to say! It’s going to be intriguing finding these characters and seeing how we can make this piece gripping and engaging without losing the overall message.