Just finished reading Hedda Gabler. Despite it reminding me of the worst class ever put on by any uni anywhere ('The Superfluous Man of 19th Century Literature' ugh) I actually really enjoyed it. It's a short play so was relatively quick to read and, despite it being written in 1890 there is still something indescribably modern about it.
Hedda is bored with married life; she has married a man she does not love and whom she has very little in common (he also has no money and she's forced to spend six months on a 'honeymoon tour' with him, during which he reads books and does research for his book). You can't help but feel a little sorry for her, even though she's a bit of an evil cow, to be honest.
It's understandable - 19th century marriages couldn't be much more than dull. Ad marriage into a poorer family than the one you come from would be even worse. Even while she was lying and poking her nose about here and there, I still admired her. Ibsen has written her as an unlikable character (I believe) who we can't help but sympathise with.
I appreciate the fact that the text is called 'Hedda Gabler' rather than 'Hedda Tesman'. As Ibsen himself stated, he called her by her maiden name to show that she was “her father's daughter, not her husband's wife”. It's very, very feminist. I believe the use of female names is important in Victorian-era literature – Jane Eyre's name should have been 'Jane Rochester' but it's not – it shows that the character of Jane is more than the sum of her marriage to Rochester. Similarly, many characters in Hedda Gabler (Brack and Eilart, for example) can't bring themselves to call her Hedda Tesman. In fact, when Lovborg refers to her as Hedda Gabler (softly, and more than once) she simply stares at him then reminds him that her name is Hedda Tessman.
Her name may have changed. But she's still Hedda Gabler to them.
I also loved Hedda's reaction to Lovborg killing himself – her response is to call it a “beautiful act” - she had even encouraged him to do it by giving him one of her pistols. What amused me, perhaps to most, was the image of Hedda aiming her gun at Lovborg. When she shoots at Brack from the window, the image is of an empowered woman, trapped in a cage. This image is also intensified by the fact that the whole play is acted out in the same stage set up – we never see Hedda anywhere but in those two rooms. She is well and truly trapped, and going crazy for it. I enjoy this aspect of Ibsen's writing (I read Doll's House and articles on the same for my dissertation on gender roles in Victorian literature) and find it comforting (and annoying) that outwith the sphere of Empire, the view of women was not quite so constricted as to have them happy in marriage and the home. Hedda isn't happy to be married, nor to be at home and I imagine that the image of her as trapped in the home ruffled a few Victorian feathers.
I enjoyed Hedda Gabler. It was funny, thoughtful and, despite reminding me of That Class, I would definitely recommend it.
I will leave you with a few of Ibsen's comments on Hedda Gabler
‘Hedda really wants to live the whole life of a man’.
(notes) (1)
I must disclaim the honour of having consciously worked for women’s rights. I am not even quite sure what women’s rights really are. To me it has been a question of human rights...Of course it is incidentally desirable to solve the problem of women; but that has not been my whole object. My task has been the portrayal of human beings.
(speech to the Norwegian Society for Women’s Rights 1898) (2)
(1), (2) from the Almeida Theatre's program of Hedda Gabler, directed by Richard Eyre. 2005.
No comments:
Post a Comment