Hedda Gabler

A TV production with a stellar cast, in which Ingrid Bergman shines the best, is unfortunately a brutally condensed, stubbed up adaptation of the classic play.

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.

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.

"Hedda Gabler" is a tough theatrical nut to crack and this rendition hardly even tries. One could suspect that they were either just doing a rush job without any proper role development and rehearsals or that director didn't have the first clue and expected actors to do it on their own. Alas they couldn't. The result is so pathetic and unconvincing that some roles even look comic at times.

It is instructional however to see how pathetic and inept Ingrid Bergman turned out to be when expected to develop a complex theatrical role. Like she was posing for a picture book, unable to breathe any life into Hedda. Makes you wonder how many of her other roles were really the result of detailed direction and precision cuts. This film has long takes and Ingrid looks thoroughly disconnected and artificial in them.

She apparently tried her best and at the beginning she was doing well, say up to the scene with Thea which uses precision cuts to show Hedda's cat&mouse game with defenseless Thea and transition from horrified to relieved that Thea doesn't really know anything about her and Lovborg's past. After that she just got more and more lost (together with director) in Ibsen's ambiguity, not knowing what to do, where to turn and not being able to do believable transition into madness.

This can also serve as a good warning that casting an actress as Hedda just because she's Scandinavian is a dangerous thing to do. Ibsen is ambiguous and requires full scale Stanislavski process and a lot of time and serious work to do it well. Glenda Jackson and her director did theatrical production first and the result was much more consistent.

I'd previously tried to sit through Glenda Jackson's live (filmed) performance of Hedda Gabler, and I detested it so much, I couldn't bear to finish it. Why did I even bother, when an infinitely better version starring Ingrid Bergman was available? This lived television play is very well done, and Ingrid gives a great performance in what could be seen as her audition for The Visit.

For those who don't know the story, Hedda Gabler is a Henrik Ibsen play about a self-centered, cruel woman who manipulates others to get her way. Because Ingrid is so pretty, the audience understands why people around her initially trust her and let their guards down. I don't mean to insult Glenda, but some roles just have physical requirements in order to be believable. Men flock to Ingrid, and she's bitter that she settled for less than she thought she deserved. Michael Redgrave plays her husband, a weak, soft, oblivious man who sparks nothing in Ingrid. Ralph Richardson is Ingrid's friend; he admires her cunning and awaits his turn to beat her at her own game. Trevor Howard gets the rare opportunity to play a love interest; he and Ingrid had an affair before she was married, and now she still wants to feel him under her thumb.

Those who like Ingrid in The Visit and Saratoga Trunk will appreciate her hard edge in this role. She doesn't usually play the villain. Gaslight, Joan of Arc, and Casablanca pretty much nailed her coffin of vulnerable roles, but when she does let loose with her strength, it's a real pleasure to watch. I can't imagine appreciating any other version of this wordy play, and really, I can't believe I even tried with Glenda Jackson.