Hedda Gabler

While not an expert, as the 2 previous reviewers present themselves to be, I consider myself to be a somewhat experienced theatre goer, having seen hundreds of stage plays over the years - and I don't mean Neil Simon or Hello Dolly - and my not totally ignorant opinion is that this TV adaptation is well worth seeing. Michael Redgrave, who wrote an excellent and very readable autobiography, is superb. Ralph Richardson, although not quite the right choice for a blackmailing seducer, is also superb. The staging, especially the stuffy Victorian set, contributes to the suffocating claustrophobia that drives Hedda to rage against her intolerable life, the unfairness of the universe, the perfidy of men, and so on. The only fault I could see in casting Ingrid Bergman is that she is about 20 years too old for the role. On the stage her age would be no hindrance, but in TVs huge closeups she fails to convince that she is in her late 20s. However, Bergman, like Hedda, is a titanic figure, which makes her a good casting choice. Along with Redgrave, Richardson, and Trevor Howard, Bergman too is superb. All in all, this production is a good introduction to this puzzling play and may just inspire the viewer to visit his local library to read this classic.

Yes, the script (from a translation by English actress, producer, director Eva Le Gallienne) is abridged from Ibsen, for television. No matter. This (and Ibsen's other plays) is incredibly difficult, demanding theatre - for performers and audiences. Every character's truth lies beneath the dialogue and action: the rich conflict and drama isn't on the surface.

It's easy for everybody to overplay or underplay Ibsen, and so wreck the carefully crafted builds and effects.

To study the differences in productions, compare this with the much later Diana Rigg production for television. In fact, there is no comparison.

Bergman wrings incredibly detailed and nuanced range from Hedda; always bordering on being "dangerous" without ever appearing "deranged." A consummate actress portraying a consummate, stifled, destructive actress.

Alternately steely cold, girlish, seductive, flirtatious, calculating, distraught, despondent, taunting, sorrowful, gleeful, provocative - sometimes within mere moments - Bergman's skills are a wonder to behold, even at the camera's close range.

So are those of Richardson, Redgrave, Howard and the rest.

Diana Rigg, no slouch as an actress, seems almost one-note when viewed against Bergman's triumph (though that may well be Rigg's director's fault).

Hedda is an easy character to make boring, nihilistic and ugly - which would repulse rather than spellbind an audience.

Bergman never lets go of her audience, or her colleagues; delivering Ibsen's particular, peculiar, tragic Hedda Gabler in all her ultimately monumental crumbling pathos and final loss of any shred of hope.

Magnificent!

The harsh reviews on here do have a point about the way Ibsen's original play has been cut and condensed to make for easier TV viewing. However, when watched as a showcase for Ingrid Bergman-- well, she's one of my favorite actresses ever and it's really great to see her tackling this role, even if she's too old for the part. The acting across the board is good and the camerawork is competent, very much the standard for 60s television as far as I can tell. I wouldn't recommend it to fans of Ibsen, but Bergman fans will be delighted.

I was initially quite nervous about Ingrid Bergman's casting here. Her eponymous character calls for a woman with quite a cruel streak in her and I feared she might not have the wherewithal. Well, though she isn't great, she does well enough as the plotting woman married to the loving but underwhelming "George" (Sir Michael Redgrave). Bored and restless, she finds a new game to play when her ex-beau "Lovborg" (a competent Trevor Howard) arrives. He is still keen on the now married woman, and she plays the part of distant and alluring in equal measure until she realises that she does not have a monopoly on his affections and her intellectual claws come out! This is one of those tea-time dramas we became accustomed to in the UK where a story with a great deal of nuance and slow-roasted characterisations was condensed into 75 minutes. To get any enjoyment from this at all, you must remember that it is a television adaptation - and a rather static one at that - that cannot possibly do proper justice to Ibsen's original work. The cast, though, work well to give us a sense of just what the author had in mind and this also ought to encourage us to read the play. I would suggest another, extended version on screen bit surprisingly, I don't think there is one - not in the English language anyway.

This production may have it's flaws, but then it an extremely edited version of a much longer play, allowing for no development in any of the character. Ibsen is at best very difficult to perform, even for the best actors. I once saw a production of 'Ghosts' that had me rolling in the aisles because it was so badly executed. Here at least you have some of the world's best actors. Yes, Richardson is badly miscast as an aging roue, but that is the director's fault. Like have Gielgud play Don Juan, you just can't believe it no matter how good the actor is. And Redgrave and Howard are excellent as always. I guess the TV producers of the day wanted to put on something 'classy' as opposed to the mindless drivel of Lucy and Gleason and others. Unfortueately the result was the 'Reader's Digest condensed' version of a classic.