Play Review: Yerma - National Theatre Live

  Yerma National Theatre Live

Please beware of spoilers to the plot of both the play and the NT adaptation.

 

I have never found it this hard to start a blog post about a play. The subject matter of Yerma threw me off completely. But allow me to start from the beginning.

 

I purchased a ticket for the live broadcast of Yerma months ago. As per usual, I was motivated not to miss a single broadcast with the added incentive of seeing Billie Piper on stage. I loved Billie as the 9th Doctor’s companion back in a day and was excited to see her perform.

 

I had not known the plot of Yerma before I picked up the book, although I did know of Frederico Garcia Lorca. I got myself a copy of Four Major Plays by Lorca and was surprised to see that the play was only 50 pages long. I managed to read it in two sittings on the day of the broadcast.

Yerma - The Play

 

Yerma is identified by Lorca as “a tragic poem in three acts and six scenes”. It was written in 1934, right on the brick of Spanish Civil War in 1936 and the author’s demise. The play takes place in a rural Andalusia, where Yerma, a married woman, suffers from the inability to conceive a child. Every woman in her seems to be pregnant, but yet she is still waiting after two years of marriage. Her husband Juan doesn’t seem to be at all concerned about it. His concerns more lie within Yerma’s increasingly erratic behaviour and worry about the spreading rumours that Yerma is unfaithful. Desperate, Yerma goes to a place of pilgrimage but refuses to lie with another man. Finding out that Juan never really wanted children and never will, Yerma kills her husband, killing with him her only hope to have a child.

 

Set in a time and society where the only place for a woman was to sit at home and raise children, Yerma is a tragic story of a woman trapped between her sense of duty and honour (toward her father and husband) and her desire to have a child (for which she requires her husband’s permission). Yerma is judged by other women and men in her environment for not having children yet. Her name itself means ‘barren’ in Spanish, although it is not clear whether it is true or not.

 

I can’t say I liked the subject matter of the play, however, Lorca’s writing is so lyrical and vivid, that I couldn’t help bookmarking a couple of passages.

 

Yerma: “Are you supposed to want a man just for being a man and nothing else?”

 

Yerma: “If I could suddenly turn into an old woman with a mouth like a crumpled flower, I could give you a smile and cheerfully share my life with you. But now, just leave me alone with my pain.”  

 

The play has a lot of songs and lyrical passages woven into the dialogues. Considering that and the length of the play, I was rather curious to see National Theatre production.

 

National Theatre

 

The play ‘Yerma’ was adapted and, essentially, re-written for modern London by Simon Stone. It is an hour and a half long play with no intermission. It was originally produced in 2016 and brought back to Young Vic in 2017.

 

Here is the official synopsis:

 

The incredible Billie Piper (Penny Dreadful, Great Britain) returns in her Evening Standard Best Actress award-winning role.

A young woman is driven to the unthinkable by her desperate desire to have a child in Simon Stone’s radical production of Lorca’s achingly powerful masterpiece. The unmissable theatre phenomenon sold out at the Young Vic and critics call it ‘an extraordinary theatrical triumph’ (The Times) and ‘stunning, searing, unmissable’ (Mail on Sunday). Billie Piper’s lead performance is described as ‘spellbinding’ (The Evening Standard), ‘astonishing’ (iNews) and ‘devastatingly powerful’ (The Daily Telegraph).

Set in contemporary London, Piper’s portrayal of a woman in her thirties desperate to conceive builds with elemental force to a staggering, shocking, climax.

 

The play was split into ‘chapter’, each introduced on a black screen with a title and live music. The blackout allowed a change of scene and decorations. The whole play is conducted in an enclosed space, which looks like a glass box or an aquarium, turning the actors into the subjects of observation. And isn’t it how life is? Both ‘Her’ (Yerma), who has no actual name, and John (Juan) are symbols of any couple struggling to conceive. She is a journalist and a blogger; John is a businessman who is always away.

 

There are a lot of changes in the play. It is hard to call it an adaptation. Rather, Lorca’s Yerma was an inspiration for Stone’s Yerma. Both Yermas are pressured by society, but they struggle and attempt to cope with it in different way. There are a lot of feminist dialogues in the Stone’s play, which are only ever hinted at (if you squint) by Lorca.

 

Similar to a modern version of Hedda Gabler, I couldn’t fully connect with modern Yerma or her obsession to have a child. A modern Yerma didn’t really the same pressure from her family. Rather that pressure came from within. Perhaps, that is why the ending of Stone’s Yerma was different from Lorca’s.

 

Billie was stunning. I loved her on stage and, I admit, if it weren’t for her captivating performance, I would have been bored out of my wits. Neither perceived societal norms or expectations regarding women's reproductive system or what they should or should not do with them are of no interest to me. Personally, I can not relate to the desire to produce an offspring, and so strong to that. But regardless of my own feelings on the matter, the play is well written and adapted for stage. Billie’s performance is riveting and well deserved of all the praise. She received several awards for her performance in Yerma, including the prestigious Best Actress at the Laurence Olivier Theatre Awards.

 

If I am to split the ratings between different parts, I would give:

 

Plot: 2 stars

Writing by Frederico Garcia Lorca: 3 stars

 

I will give the play the average of 3 stars.

 

Adaptation by Simon Stone: 4 stars

Performance: 5 stars

 

I will give the production the average of 4 stars.

 

More of my theatre play reviews.

 

Sources:

Theatre Blog: The plays I want to see (Fall 2017 - Spring 2018) - National Theatre Live

So far, this year has been absolutely great on all National Theatre Live broadcasts. There were a lot of plays that I loved and would happily watch more than once. I know that I am a bit behind on reviews here, but since I found information about upcoming broadcasts at Cineplex website, I just had to share!

Yerma - National Theatre Live

September 21, 2017 | 2h 00m

GENRE: Drama, Stage

DIRECTOR: Simon Stone (Director), Federico García Lorca (Playwright)

CAST: Billie Piper

SYNOPSIS

The incredible Billie Piper (Penny Dreadful, Great Britain) returns in her award-winning role. A young woman is driven to the unthinkable by her desperate desire to have a child in Simon Stone’s radical production of Lorca’s achingly powerful masterpiece. The unmissable theatre phenomenon sold out at the Young Vic and critics call it ‘an extraordinary theatrical triumph’ (The Times) and ‘stunning, searing, unmissable’ (Mail on Sunday). Billie Piper’s lead performance is described as ‘spellbinding’ (The Evening Standard), ‘astonishing’ (iNews) and ‘devastatingly powerful’ (The Daily Telegraph). Set in contemporary London, Piper’s portrayal of a woman in her thirties desperate to conceive builds with elemental force to a staggering, shocking, climax. Please note that this broadcast does not have an interval.

Links:

My comments: I have already purchased the ticket for this broadcast. I am very excited to see Billie Piper on stage, whom I really liked in Doctor Who. And this time I swear, I will read the play before watching it.

 

Follies - National Theatre Live

November 16, 2017 | 3h 30m

GENRE: Musical, Stage

DIRECTOR: Dominic Cooke

CAST: Imelda Staunton, Tracie Bennett, Janie Dee

SYNOPSIS:

Stephen Sondheim’s legendary musical is staged for the first time at the National Theatre and broadcast live to cinemas. New York, 1971. There’s a party on the stage of the Weismann Theatre. Tomorrow the iconic building will be demolished. Thirty years after their final performance, the Follies girls gather to have a few drinks, sing a few songs and lie about themselves. Tracie Bennett, Janie Dee and Imelda Staunton play the magnificent Follies in this dazzling new production. Featuring a cast of 37 and an orchestra of 21, it’s directed by Dominic Cooke (The Comedy of Errors). Winner of Academy, Tony, Grammy and Olivier awards, Sondheim’s previous work includes A Little Night Music, Sweeney Todd and Sunday in the Park with George.

Links:

My comments: I am not familiar with this story but I am excited to see Imelda Staunton on stage again. After watching “Who is afraid of Virginia Woolf?” (read my review here), I developed a new level of appreciation for Imelda. She was terrific in that play, so I can’t wait to see this production.

 

Young Marx - National Theatre Live

December 7, 2017 | 3h 40m

GENRE: Comedy, Stage

DIRECTOR: Nicholas Hytner

CAST: Rory Kinnear, Oliver Chris

SYNOPSIS:

Rory Kinnear (The Threepenny Opera, Penny Dreadful, Othello) is Marx and Oliver Chris (Twelfth Night, Green Wing) is Engels, in this new comedy written by Richard Bean and Clive Coleman. Broadcast live from The Bridge Theatre, London, the production is directed by Nicholas Hytner and reunites the creative team behind Broadway and West End hit comedy One Man, Two Guvnors. 1850, and Europe’s most feared terrorist is hiding in Dean Street, Soho. Broke, restless and horny, the thirty-two-year-old revolutionary is a frothing combination of intellectual brilliance, invective, satiric wit, and child-like emotional illiteracy. Creditors, spies, rival revolutionary factions and prospective seducers of his beautiful wife all circle like vultures. His writing blocked, his marriage dying, his friend Engels in despair at his wasted genius, his only hope is a job on the railway. But there’s still no one in the capital who can show you a better night on the piss than Karl Heinrich Marx.

Links:

My comments: Can’t say I am very interested in the story of Karl Marx, but Rory Kinnear is a terrific actor. I have seen him in The Threepenny Opera and Othello (both by NT) and I know that this is going to be a great play!

 

Hamlet - National Theatre Live ENCORE

March 1, 2018 | 3h 25m

Links:

My comments: Hamlet with Benedict Cumberbatch - what more can I say? I have seen it twice already but will watch it again, and again, and again.

 

 

 

 

Julius Caesar - National Theatre Live

March 22, 2018 | 3h 00m

GENRE: Stage

DIRECTOR: Nicholas Hytner

CAST: Ben Whishaw, Michelle Fairley, David Calder, David Morrissey

SYNOPSIS:

Ben Whishaw (The Danish Girl, Skyfall, Hamlet) and Michelle Fairley (Fortitude, Game of Thrones) play Brutus and Cassius, David Calder (The Lost City of Z, The Hatton Garden Job) plays Caesar and David Morrissey (The Missing, Hangmen, The Walking Dead) is Mark Antony. Broadcast live from The Bridge Theatre, London. Caesar returns in triumph to Rome and the people pour out of their homes to celebrate. Alarmed by the autocrat’s popularity, the educated élite conspire to bring him down. After his assassination, civil war erupts on the streets of the capital. Nicholas Hytner’s production will thrust the audience into the street party that greets Caesar’s return, the congress that witnesses his murder, the rally that assembles for his funeral and the chaos that explodes in its wake.

Links:

My comments: Ben Whishaw on stage. What else do you need? I fell in love with Ben as Freddie Lyon in the British TV series ‘The Hour’. I believe, it will be the first time I see him on stage, and I can not wait!

 

 

This is all that has been announced for the broadcast in foreseeable future. As always, keep an eye on Cineplex and NTLive.com websites for more information. (And, no, I have no affiliation with either companies - I am just an avid theatre goer ♥).

Check out my play reviews here.

Play Review: "Who Is Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" by Edward Albee (NT live)

"Who Is Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" by Edward Albee (NT live)  

Edward Albee’s award winning play “Who is Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” was produced by Sonia Friedman Productions and broadcasted by NT Live. You might have already heard of Sonia Friedman Productions as they also produced Hamlet with Benedict Cumberbatch at The Barbican in 2015 (that was broadcasted by NTLive), Much Ado About Nothing, King Charles III (with David Tennant, Catherine Tate) - to name a few. They plan to bring Harry Potter and The Cursed Child on Broadway on 2018 too. And this year they are producing Hamlet with Andrew Scott (also on stage of Harold Pinter Theatre), and I am keeping all of my fingers crossed that NTLive would pick it up too. Because there is no such thing as too much Hamlet.

“Who Is Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” spots an all-star cast, including Imelda Staunton (Gypsy, Vera Drake, the Harry Potter films); Conleth Hill (Game Of Thrones, The Producers); Luke Treadaway (The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, Fortitude, The Hollow Crown) and Imogen Poots (A Long Way Down, Jane Eyre).

 

From NTLive.com:

 

In the early hours of the morning on the campus of an American college, Martha, much to her husband George’s displeasure, has invited the new professor and his wife to their home for some after-party drinks. As the alcohol flows and dawn approaches, the young couple are drawn into George and Martha’s toxic games until the evening reaches its climax in a moment of devastating truth-telling.

 

I had not read the play before going to see it, so the impact of it was quite intense. I loved the build-up and eventual catharsis through which the characters go through. It is a rather intense and harrowing performance to watch as you first think that it is just all innocent fun and Martha just had a couple of too many drinks. But as her voice becomes more shrill and her accusations more sharp, you can’t help thinking that there might be something more behind it all.

 

I must give it to Imelda - she is definitely the driving force of this play, and I admire the way she is able to deliver lines almost at the yelling volume throughout the play without losing her voice. She is a force to be reckoned with and pulls all of the attention towards her, which makes the revelation delivered by George even more astounding. George seems to be pushed around a lot, but he is the one who eventually delivers the final blow.

 

The recurring line of “Who is afraid of Virginia Woolf?” which was sung throughout the play to the tune of Three Little Pigs got stuck in my head for days. It made me also wonder who was supposed to represent ‘big bad wolf’ in this play. Perhaps, it is reality itself, as all characters seem to be living in some sort of fantasy that they have constructed themselves.

 

Nothing as it seems in this play. It is a mix of reality and illusion - and I loved it for it. However, the ending left me feeling desolate and despaired of the humanity, as it intended, I assume. Definitely recommend this play and this production in particular. I spent the whole evening on the edge on the edge of my seat.

 

 

Rating: 4 stars

 

More of my play reviews

 

Sources:

Play Review: Obsession - National Theatre Live

 

I went to see the broadcast of "Obsession" play on May 11. It was broadcast live from the Barbican Theatre in London and was only about an hour and a half long with no intermission. The play is a new stage adaptation of Luchino Visconti’s 1943 film. I have never watched the movie, but I was attracted to this play because of two things: one, the main protagonist Gino is played by Jude Law, whom I had never seen on stage; and two, the play was produced by Ivo van Hove, whose in Hedda Gabler I really enjoyed (he also produced A View From The Bridge).

The movie “Obsession” that this play is based on, was quoted to be the first neorealist movie and an unofficial adaptation of the novel The Postman Always Rings Twice (the book that I have heard of but never read).

 

The play was introduced by a short video clip of the rehearsals and interviews with Ivo van Hove and Jude Law.

 

Here is the synopsis of the play from NT Live:

 

Gino is a drifter, down-at-heel and magnetically handsome. At a road side restaurant he encounters husband and wife, Giuseppe and Giovanna. Irresistibly attracted to each other, Gino and Giovanna begin a fiery affair and plot to murder her husband. But, in this chilling tale of passion and destruction, the crime only serves to tear them apart.

 

No matter, how much it hurts me to admit it, but I was extremely bored throughout the play. The stage decorations and props are so few and minimalistic that it leaves most to the imagination of the audience to decide when the characters are eating, sleeping or how much time has passed. I understand that it comes from the premise and the background of the story: Giuseppe and Giovanna are poor - their restaurant is void of customers when Gino stumbles in. Gino himself barely has enough money for one meal and definitely not enough things to call his own. Even though the attraction between Gino and Giovanna is portrayed interestingly through movements and glances, their love story is nothing new. The whole plot felt trite and predictable, and I was grateful that I didn’t have to suffer through more than one act of it.

 

Jude Law is great as Gino, both alluring and wild, but Giovanna was barely anything at all as a character, and it is sad. The most exciting part of the play was how van Hove decided to portray murder and blood. Instead of an actual car, there was a car engine hanging a bit over the stage. It revved and smoked and produced black oil-like substance that covered the characters on stage as they grappled and twisted in fight. That black slime represented the blood and crime, and that was probably the most unique setup that I have ever seen. Definitely an ingenuous idea on Ivo van Hove's part.

 

But otherwise it was so uninspiring - I found the behind the scenes footage more interesting to watch than the actual play - that I couldn't help glancing at my watch, and it never happens! Slightly disappointed, but otherwise content, if not happy, to have seen both Jude Law’s and Ivo van Hove’s work on stage. Can’t say it is something I would recommend, unless you are a fan of either or the movie.

 

Personal rating: 3 stars

 

Sources:

 

Play Review: Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead - National Theatre Live

 

Raise a hand if you can pronounce the title of this play, “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead”, in one go without twisting your tongue - because I can’t! So, I am going to refer to it from now it as ‘RaG’ in my review, because even typing it in full is a hassle.

I heard about this play for the first time at my very first job, where we had the movie with same title available at the library. It was released in 1990 and had two of my (now) favourite actors - Gary Oldman and Tim Roth. I never had a chance to rent this movie and for years ‘RaG’ in my head was labelled as ‘that one movie I never got to watch’. I knew that it was somehow linked to Shakespeare, but only later I learned that it was originally a play by Tom Stoppard and not a movie (the movie had Stoppard as both director and writer). When National Theatre announced this play in honour of the play’s 50th anniversary and casted Joshua McGuire and Daniel Radcliffe (the latter I had been dying to see on stage), I was ready to buy tickets on spot. I believe that the fact that ex Harry Potter was on stage had to do something with the younger than usual audience at the broadcast - which is great as I would love to more younger people go to theatre. I watched this play on April 20, and if I could, I would watch it again.

 

As per usual, I set my mind on reading the play before watching it on stage, but I didn’t have time to finish it. And I am glad it happened this way as I think it is easy to get lost in the absurdist nature of the dialogues and miss the point, while watching it on stage added a different layer of meaning.

 

If you don’t know what this play is about but you feel that it is vaguely familiar, well, you are not alone. Tom Stoppard took two secondary characters, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, from Shakespeare’s Hamlet and wrote an absurdist, existentialist tragicomedy that portrays those two inseparable friends as confused and unwilling participants in the events of Hamlet. There are bits of dialogues and actual scenes from Hamlet, but they are used to only enhance the absurdity of everything that is happening. R and G are confused by their existence, by the world’s existence, by everything that is happening, including Hamlet’s depression and obsession with his father’s death. They futilely try to find the meaning in everything, but eventually, even when they discover that the letter with death sentence that they carry has their names, they still follow the appointed road to the end.

 

The play is funny, absurd, existential, and thought provoking. It is a meta within a meta, and theatrical bits and scenes serve as the commentary and parody on Hamlet. Both Joshua McGuire and Daniel Radcliffe do an amazing job as two confused fellows, who try and fail to make sense of things. They talk about life and death, and probability. The play has too many layers to take in just in one viewing. That is why I hope I would get a chance to see it on stage again, as I feel in no way qualified to talk about the play indepth.

 

The play was introduced by a short movie, as usual, with both actors talking about the play and stage. The Old Vic’s stage was transformed and sort of elongated to bring it closer to the audience. The play originally premiered in the same theatre 50 years ago, which made it an incredible experience for both the actors and the audience to experience it again on the same stage.

 

Highly recommend to English majors, Shakespeare lovers as well as fans of theatre!

 

Personal rating: 4 stars

 

Sources:

 

Book/Play review: The Deep Blue Sea by Terence Rattigan (script + National Theatre)

 

If you have been following me for some time, you probably already know that I go to see every and each NT Live broadcast, time permitting. I saw Helen McCrory in both Medea and The Last of the Haussmans and as a huge fan of The Three Musketeers in general I instantly became a fan of Tom Burke’s Athos in BBC The Musketeers. Needless to say, when I found out that both of those actors were going to be on stage at National Theatre, I knew that I would be seeing it for sure. I purchased tickets for both broadcasts (they were a week or so apart, I believe) and set on reading the play beforehand.

Sadly, I failed at my plan to read the play before watching it as it turned out to be a bit difficult to find a new edition in local stores, and by the time I got my copy from BookDepository, I was already otherwise engaged.

 

I read the script months later after watching the play and, to be honest, I don’t regret it, as it allowed me to process my thoughts and form my opinions, and reading the script later only enhanced the experience. National Theatre production follows the script almost to the point, with the exception of few details, so unless mentioned otherwise my review is applicable to both.

 

From NT Live website:

 

Helen McCrory (Medea and The Last of the Haussmans at the National Theatre, Penny Dreadful, Peaky Blinders) returns to the National Theatre in Terence Rattigan’s devastating masterpiece, playing one of the greatest female roles in contemporary drama. Tom Burke (War and Peace, The Musketeers) also features in Carrie Cracknell’s critically acclaimed new production.

A flat in Ladbroke Grove, West London. 1952.

When Hester Collyer is found by her neighbours in the aftermath of a failed suicide attempt, the story of her tempestuous affair with a former RAF pilot and the breakdown of her marriage to a High Court judge begins to emerge.

With it comes a portrait of need, loneliness and long-repressed passion. Behind the fragile veneer of post-war civility burns a brutal sense of loss and longing.

 

I think this play has one of the most dramatic openings I have ever seen. The play opens with the aftermath of Hester’s attempted suicide, but at first we do not know what is happening and why she did what she did, when she is found. The depth of her despair is unraveled throughout the play. Hester is lost and trapped between the encompassing passion towards Freddie and the realization that he may never love her as much as she loves him. Both strong and weak, Hester as portrayed by Helen McCrory is a beautiful disaster to watch. Hester is desperate and her desperation drives Freddie away. He is scared, but also lost, as after the war he knows naught what to do with himself. ‘We will be death to each other’ is his excuse for leaving Hester. But, perhaps, it is what might help her rise up from the ashes at the end.

 

In spite of a rather heavy topic of depression, mental health and deep desire, the play is richly peppered with sarcastic remarks and witticisms, that make the play very addicting. I watched it twice and would watch it again in a heartbeat, as this production was simply amazing. What adds to the plot’s already dark beginning is the fact that Rattigan wanted his play to specifically start with the suicide by the fireplace, as it was the way his former lover had ended his life. It is said that unable to write openly about his relationship, Rattigan wrote it coded in this play.

 

I don’t think I will ever be able to imagine anyone else but Helen McCrory as Hester. She was stunning as Hester, her desperation and addiction to Freddie portrayed with incredible rawness on stage. Hester is convinced that there is nothing for her beyond this, until she is somewhat inspired by the former doctor who is tending to her after the suicide attempt. Every character in this play is fascinating in their own way, from the neighbours to Hester’s ‘not so ex’ husband, Freddie and his friends, but Heter steals all attention. Helen McCrory is wonderful to watch, especially in the end, which is as open as it gets. I thought about it a lot, and I personally like to see it as a beginning not an end for her character.

 

It is a wonderful, albeit dark play, and if you are looking for a bit of heartbreak mixed with a good doze of British sarcasm - I highly recommend you watch or read this play. My copy of this script is as heavily tabbed and bookmarked as my Oscar Wilde plays. Terrence might end up being my other favourite playwright of all time.

 

Play script: 5 stars

Play by National Theatre: 5 stars

 

Sources:

Book/Play review: Hedda Gabler by Henrik Ibsen + National Theatre Live

This is going to be the review for both the script and National Theatre Live production, as there are some certain differences to Hedda’s character, which I found really interesting. Beware of plot spoilers ahead.

“Hedda Gabler” is a four act play written by the norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen in 1890. The edition that I read was translated by Jens Arup and the introduction written by James McFarlane (Oxford World’s Classics). The introduction gives us a brief synopsis of Ibsen’s life and work.

 

The play starts on the morning after Hedda and her husband, Jorgen Tesman, arrived from their six months long honeymoon. Tesman holds a University Fellowship in cultural history and used the opportunity of their honeymoon to do his research, which Hedda finds incredibly boring and ridiculous. They are visited by Tesman’s aunt, who lives nearby and takes care of her seriously ill sister. The next visitor is Mrs. Elvested who brings the rumour of Ejlert Lovborg being back in town. There is also a rumour, brought by Tesman’s friend, a judge named Mr. Black, that Lovborg is going to apply for the same position in University as Tesman and that his latest book was very successful. All of this prompts a series of events that snowball to a climatic ending.

 

“Hedda Gabler” is a very interesting play with multiple layers. Written in the 19th century, it shows us a character of Hedda who is quite obviously ahead of her time. Ibsen even intentionally titled the play with Hedda’s maiden name as if to show that she was not just her husband’s wife. Hedda is smart and strong-willed, she is hungry for knowledge and dominance - things that were only available to men in that time. She was brought up by her father, the general, and is said to have learnt to ride a horse and fire a gun - as a matter of fact, she owns a pair of pistols that play a prominent role in the play. She despises any sign of weakness, expressed by either a man or a woman. There are mentions of her pregnancy throughout the play, but she ignores or diverts the attention whenever the subject is brought up, which made me think that she viewed her pregnancy as yet another boundary of the marriage and the weakness.

 

Hedda can be quite cruel and unsympathetic towards people in her quest to overpower them, and Ibsen even said that the play is “the study in demonic”, which made me think at the very beginning that Hedda exhibits signs of psychopathy. It is, obviously, almost impossible to prove, and I think it would be safe to assume that Hedda was suffering from some sort of mental illness, as a result of her life.

 

Hedda is trapped by the society norms and expectations. She married Tesman because it was expected of her. She doesn’t love him, she doesn’t care about his research, but she does care about appearances and social status. She has high expectations for his potential promotion at University, as that would bring money and status, and that is why the moment that promotion is threatened, she springs into action. Hedda does all she can to protect herself and her status, however, it still leads to her downfall, as she is unable to break away from the society’s rules. She can’t leave her husband, she has no way of making money or supporting herself. In a way, she even envies Mrs. Elvested her simple courage to leave her husband for Lovborg. At the end, she takes her own life as her only way of escape.

 

I found the way Hedda manipulates people incredibly fascinating. She is a true mastermind in this play, although she does fall prey to Mr. Black. In many ways, “Hedda Gabler” is a feminist play as it shows a woman struggling to be on the same level as men. Since it was set in the 19th century, it is obvious, that the root of all her troubles is the time and society itself. That is why I was incredibly excited to learn that National Theatre production moved the time of the play to contemporary age.

 

 

 

 

If we take Hedda out of the 19th century and the boundaries that existed there, would she still exhibit the same internal conflict? Would she be still trapped? How different would she be? Those were the questions that kept running through my head.

 

This new version of the play was written by Patrick Marber. He quite masterfully adapted the script, changing some of the settings and dialogues to fit the modern time. Hedda is played by Ruth Wilson, who brings both fierceness and vulnerability to her character.

 

Why did modern Hedda marry Tesman? She didn’t have to. But she did because she felt that she was getting old. Was she really as trapped as she thought she was? Because she could have left her husband, she could have divorced him, she could have started a new life. So, why?

 

I think, that the difference between Ibsen’s and Marber’s Hedda lies in the fact that while the former is trapped by society - something that she unable to change, the latter is trapped in her own mind. Modern Hedda is brilliant and beautiful but she is also lost and unable to find her way out. Why? It is hard to say as we don’t get any glimpses into her childhood. However, it is clear that there are certain, probably self-imposed, rules, that Hedda has to abide by. And that makes me believe that Hedda is plagued by mental illness more so in the modern version than the original play. I found both the script and the NT production to be equally fascinating, but for me those were two different Heddas: one trapped by society and another by herself.

 

Was Hedda a demon, who gave a recovering alcoholic a drink and then a gun to “do it beautifully”? Or was she a coward with “no talent for life”, who couldn’t break the chains of marriage and society? I believe that she can be viewed as both and none at the same time. Hedda Gabler is a unique character, who defies all expectations.

 

Sources:

 

  • Ibsen, Henrik. Four Major Plays. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
  • Hedda Gabler - National Theatre Live. March 26, 2017. http://ntlive.nationaltheatre.org.uk/productions/59687-hedda-gabler

Play review: Amadeus - National Theatre Live

Amadeus Amadeus

 

Amadeus is a play by Peter Shaffer, written and originally produced in 1979, which recounts the fictional story about the lives of famous 18th century composers, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Antonio Salieri. The play was turned by Shaffer into an award winning film with the same title in 1984.

I admit that I can’t really remember if I ever watched the movie, but I was quite familiar with the plot of this play even before watching this production, as years ago I read the poetic drama ‘Mozart and Solieri’ by Alexander Pushkin, which, undoubtedly, served as an inspiration for Peter Shaffer’s Amadeus.

 

The play depicts Solieri as an established Italian composer in Vienna, who is quite comfortable in his position in society, until one day he hears of a young composer by the name of Mozart who is said to be as eccentric as he is talented. Solieri believes nothing of this until he himself hears Mozart’s music. He is struck by its beauty and feels immediately threatened. As the play progresses, Solieri presents himself as Mozart’s friend while, in fact, plotting his demise. After Mozart’s death and at the end of his own life, Solieri stages the big revelation claiming that it was he who killed Mozart, before taking his own life.

 

In this production, the role of Solieri is played by Lucian Msamati, who is most probably familiar to many for his role on Game of Thrones. The role of his rival, Mozart, is played by Adam Gillen who looks like a cherub but behaves like a spoiled kid, disregarding social etiquette and causing trouble for everyone. I can only applaud both actors for their! However, if I had to pick between the two, Solieri would be my favourite. I couldn’t help but sympathize with a man who was, perhaps, limited in talent but not ambition and who worked hard to be accepted as an Italian at the court of the Austrian king.  

 

The play incorporates pieces of operas and concerts by Mozart, and the orchestra assembly is part of the action itself. The musicians are not hidden in the pit but, on the contrary, move freely across the stage. Some of those musical numbers looked rather unusual. I remember one violinist playing while lying on the floor, which left me wondering how she managed it with limited arm movement range. Quite impressive.

 

I watched this play as a live broadcast on February 2 in my local cinema. I found the first act a bit slow at the beginning, but the second one was more fast paced and powerful. I wouldn’t call this play my absolutely favourite thing but I was very impressed by the acting and music.

 

Personal rating: 3.5 stars

 

Sources:

More of my play reviews