Skip to main content

Hedda Gabler

The work of German director Thomas Ostermeier has long been on the radar of Eyewear - no other European theatre company seems so au courant, and yet thrillingly-engaged with the classical, as his. Hedda Gabler (seen at the Barbican last night, and reviewed in rather lukewarm fashion for instance here by the British press) was simply a pleasure, for 120 minutes or so.

The production highlights the way that film can be looped back to bleed mood and texture to theatre, and generate a hyper-real, if cinematic, event. Gabbler, as superbly played by Ms. Schüttler, is a sly, restless, bored boyish coquette with great legs, stylish sailor outfit, and a deranged sense of being and nothingness.

Ibsen, the master builder who created her in 1890 (that is, 118 years ago) must be credited with outdoing Freud, let alone Film Noir (thus, out-Tarantinoing Tarantino), in conceiving of the Ur-femme fatale. Girl Plays With Guns, Girl Points Gun At Man, Girl Gives Gun To Man, Girl Blows Her Brains Out could be the four-act structure.

By slivering this down to six characters, with five central performances (and several permutations of triangle) the new version, updating manuscripts to text on laptops, and set in a modern "Koenig House", is about as eerily shallow, shimmering and chlorinated as an Easton Ellis pool - in fact, the less-than-zero logic of the look should have actually set the play in Los Angeles (Hedda as Britney) - for her chilling absence of ultimate purpose (if not design) is somewhat perplexing. If anything, this would have explained the Beach Boys Pet Sounds soundtrack, if not the September rain glistening like radiant loss, or desire, on the great picture windows overlooking total darkness, even during the "day".

What does come across, brilliantly, is how deviant, cruel, and playful she is, in her many manipulations - outdoing Briony of Atonement in a second - Gabler toys with pistols, sex, and The Future (as an academic and actual subject). She writes her own book of destiny - one that makes self-destruction "beautiful" - as she summons the total courage to make her own murder a grand project that removes her from the sex, and society, of those who merely want to create, or possess, or know.

Gabler will always be both an enigma (she is unknowable, as Lear is, in her negations), and a symbol - the negation of the negation - an Hegelian angel, slumming in the lap of store-bought luxury - wanting what is on the other side of night, the screen, glass - The Real. Her terrible energy and supple erotic dalliance with murder and existence makes her a vitally 20th century fox - hunting for something Ibsen could never find. This new production suggests she will run long into our century - lost in its own Digital Decor and Dullness - sadly, madly, too.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

CLIVE WILMER'S THOM GUNN SELECTED POEMS IS A MUST-READ

THAT HANDSOME MAN  A PERSONAL BRIEF REVIEW BY TODD SWIFT I could lie and claim Larkin, Yeats , or Dylan Thomas most excited me as a young poet, or even Pound or FT Prince - but the truth be told, it was Thom Gunn I first and most loved when I was young. Precisely, I fell in love with his first two collections, written under a formalist, Elizabethan ( Fulke Greville mainly), Yvor Winters triad of influences - uniquely fused with an interest in homerotica, pop culture ( Brando, Elvis , motorcycles). His best poem 'On The Move' is oddly presented here without the quote that began it usually - Man, you gotta go - which I loved. Gunn was - and remains - so thrilling, to me at least, because so odd. His elegance, poise, and intelligence is all about display, about surface - but the surface of a panther, who ripples with strength beneath the skin. With Gunn, you dressed to have sex. Or so I thought.  Because I was queer (I maintain the right to lay claim to that

IQ AND THE POETS - ARE YOU SMART?

When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart?  A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional.  Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were.  For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ?  Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets.  But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ?  How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular.  John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se.  What do I mean by smart?

"I have crossed oceans of time to find you..."

In terms of great films about, and of, love, we have Vertigo, In The Mood for Love , and Casablanca , Doctor Zhivago , An Officer and a Gentleman , at the apex; as well as odder, more troubling versions, such as Sophie's Choice and  Silence of the Lambs .  I think my favourite remains Bram Stoker's Dracula , with the great immortal line "I have crossed oceans of time to find you...".