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.

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.

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.

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.