
Though Heyman has invested most of her 3 years at BU on Hedda, her production made it seem as though she disliked the text- covering up the words and story with heavy handed "moments" instead of playing the moments that are already there.
The characters too, seemed to disappear somewhat behind larger points that were trying to be made out of nothing.
Eilert Lovborg, specifically, was completely unrecognizable as an animalistic id (played with impressive athleticism by a misguided but compelling Hampton Fluker).
Mrs. Elvsted fared a little better, played with some dexterity by Lily Narbonne, though much of the character's depth was hidden behind a bundle of nerves.

Mathias Goldstein provided a bright spot as the always entertaining Judge Brack and sharing the stage with him brought out the most interesting thing about Alex Highsmith's title character (a performance that, while energetic and committed, lacked the power, restlessness and control of a great Hedda) . There is really no reason her chemistry with the judge should be easily the most palpable, but it was somewhat interesting that it was. With a Tesman entirely more worthy of her love than is usual and an Eilert who's more symbol than character, a Hedda who is most engaging when with the judge could have an interesting effect.

The set was beautiful (designed by Caitlin Fergus) and Ameera Ali's costumes (other than that horrible ball gown) were excellent (particularly Hedda's stunning all-black ensemble) but you can't stage an effective play without bothering to tell the story.
I appreciate a director's right to interpret, to try something new, to attempt a strange metaphor that not a soul will understand. But those things should serve the play, not ignore it. Henrik Ibsen is the world's second most produced playwright (after Shakespeare) and is considered the father of modern drama. His work should be played with, not against.
No comments:
Post a Comment