Waiting until never

Waiting for Godot has to be the most complex play this semester. It is quite deceiving with the small length and It had a very existentialist view on life.
Vladimir and Estragon are waiting for something that doesn't exist. I do believe that Godot resembles God in the play. This is confirmed by the fact that he never shows his face, but Vladimir and Estragon still have faith that he exists. Also, there are a lot of biblical references mentioned in the play. Estragon referred to himself as Adam at one point and then Pozzo responded to the name Cain. Both names containing very religious contexts.
One of the most important things in the play was the use of repetition and never ending idleness. The main characters always repeat sentences, playing with their hats, and singing songs. They also seem to repeat the same actions over and over again with the messenger and with Pozzo and Lucky. They even admit that is a cycle of actions that always happen. Although they always say they are going to leave, at the end of every scene they are seen in the same spot the scene started in. They are simply waiting for something to happen to them instead of them going to make something happen.
The use of pairs is evident in the play also: Vladimir and Estragon, Pozzo and Lucky, Godot and the messenger, even the fact that the play has only two acts.
I can tell the play was written very constructively and for that I thank Beckett for all the hidden symbols and meanings. This makes the audience think.

Flower girl

In the play, Pygmalion, by George Bernard, is a fantastic ! I loved the whole thing. from the instant I began to read, I was captured. I was immediately drawn to Eliza, like many I assume. While I was reading, at first I felt a great deal of gratitude towards Higgens, for giving her this new life. The poeticism in this play was marvelous, and so deeply romantic. The whole time I was reading, I felt that Higgens and Eliza would fall in love, I had given up this feeling when she left his house and went to his mother. I also at a moment felt that Higgens mistreated her, speaking of her as his creation, and she being a creature. But I think this is what provoked him to fall in love, the fact that he had spent so much time with her and transformed her into his "ideal" women, she was in some sort, his replica. I also in some manner, felt that Eliza was a little ungrateful towards Higgens. When she spoke to him and asked what she was to do when they were over with her, at some point he said that they could give her money to open up a flower shop, shouldn't that in some sense be enough? Yet, I do realize that he could have said this out of spite towards her, in sarcasm. I rethink and realize that he also spoke of her marrying someone, and that must have been a dagger in the heart, for she actually had some sort of love or attachments towards him. This is the first play that captured me, and I didn't want to stop reading it!

pigˈmālyən

Pygmalion,pigˈmālyən, was an extraordinary tale that was at once a romance and a social commentary on the British class system of the time. I was highly entertained and intrigued by the character of Higgins who was a gentlemen by right yet had the manners of the lower class. The parallels between him and Liza were very interesting and yet while her character grew and became much more his character seemed stuck in his ways. Colonel Pickering was also a favorite character of mine and yet he could have used a little more development. I found the speech patterns of the various characters very fun and it created a good sense of individuality among them.

Pygmalion: A Romance

As much as I love a good realistic thriller, I also find great joy in sinking my teeth into a nice romance story. One thing that sets this particular romance apart from others is the fact that it is a commentary on the British hierarchy and the independence of women during this time. These two aspects indeed caught my attention: reading Pygmalion was a great pleasure. I was able to relate many of the topics mentioned in the play to everyday life, which is normally the ultimate goal of any playwright. Henry Higgens, the phonetic professor, stressed that phonetics can affect almost any situation and can class any group of people. I also found it interesting how Eliza sets out to change her life under Mr. Higgen's teaching. I loved how people from all different walks of life are joined together under and non-ideal and otherwise uncompromising situation, the rainy weather. I found it interesting to watch Eliza developed as a character in many ways. She is strong throughout the entire play in my opinion, but she often finds herself confused an mislead because of misconceptions within her own mind. By the end of the play, Eliza has gained more wit that her teacher which surprises him. I find it interesting that even though it may be perceived that Higgins does not treat Eliza right, in the end, he gains a certain respect for her because she has managed to think for herself. I found that this play was no more about changing a personality than it was about developing one.

A lady at heart, a story of a flower- girl....

I could not even take a break from reading this play until I finished it - so intriguing angaging it is. I think it's brilliant. I fully enjoyed Shaw's beautiful language. I have to admit: to the last page I was hoping that Eliza and Higgins confess their love to each other ( the romantic in me!) but Show stays extremely true to the characters and does not completely streighten out their complex relationship. I think that they are attracted to each other, but but both are almost too intelligent to be together: Higgins is passional for phonetics and Eliza knows that and would not what to come second( even Shaw himself says so). He, her new identity creator, will always stand in her hierarchy above every other human being because of his amazing mind. Although Higgins taught Eliza everything, I think she was always a very strong woman. Manners can not completely change a person. She just became more appealing to society with her new look, habits, speech, grace and all the other attributes of a lady. She even admitted that her reformation process started when Pickering first called her Ms Doolittle and started treating her with respect. That's when she found her own respect for herself, found her inner lady.

Shaw's imaginative and lovely recreation of the Greek legend of Pygmalion and Galatea is both witty and brilliant. I love the way he modernized the legend in a well rounded and understandable way. Of course Higgins character is based off of Pygmalion in the Greek legend in which he spends strenuous hours perfecting his art work until it is what he deems perfect but unintentionally falls in love with his work. Higgins is a proud man that does not want to show his romantic, "mushy" side. Eliza is our Galatea, starting off as a cockney flower girl and being sharpened into a well-mannered upper-class young lady. Just like Galatea, Eliza was polished until what was created was Higgins' masterpiece. I loved Eliza's character. She was quirky and expressed her true feelings she did not let society influence who she was even after she became a proper lady. She always held her head high no matter what tattered or perfectly tailored gown she wore. The last thing I would like to make note of is that I personally felt that the focal point of the play was on Eliza; so why name the play Pygmalion? This is only a thought I felt I should throw in.

Friendship > Romantic Relationship

Through their constant day to day interactions for six months Higgins and Liza formed a relationship ( a soul tie). Not a romantic relationship but more of a dysfunctional friendship. It is my belief that some friendships can be greater than any physical relationship with a person. Liza came to know Higgins ways so well that she knew what he would want before he even opened his mouth. In Act five Ms. Higgins mentions how attached Liza became to Higgins. In this same act Liza tells Higgins that she agreed to the bet because they were pleasant together and she came to care for him; not to want Higgins to make love to her, and not to forget the difference between them, but more friendly like. Higgins even lets Liza know how much he cares for her but both of them are so stubborn that they can’t just squash the issue and continue to build their friendship. During their argument in his own little way Higgins tells Liza that he will miss her and Liza tells him to listen to the gramophone .Higgins response is he can’t turn on her soul. In this moment I realize that through their relationship Higgins has felt a connection with Liza’s soul and that in a strange way he doesn’t want to lose her because if he does he may lose his “soul mate.”

What's in a name

I'll be honest. When I first got set to read the play, I figured it would be set in an older time. I knew the Pygmalion but could not for the life of me remember where I had heard it. As I was reading the play, nothing helped me remember why it was called Pygmalion until once I had finished reading it, I asked my roommate why the play was called that. She explained the Greek myth to me of the man who created the perfect woman and then fell in love with her, and then it made sense. Liza was a poor flower girl with nothing special going for her, and Higgins was her Pygmalion. The ending though was different. Pygmalion did not fall in love with Liza. In fact, she did not fall in love with him either. Liza became an independent woman which was a shout out to feminism. I also liked how they seemed to come to a mutual understanding of the other. I'd say friendship but that sounds a little too far-fetched for Higgins. In my mind, Liza comes back to Higgins' home with the Colonel and they go about life until she marries. Even then she still keeps in contact with the bachelors. I really enjoyed how Shaw left it open to interpretation to the readers, but I like the sequel part after the play as well because it really goes into detail of what happens after. Overall, it was a very good play.

My Fair Lady? Such bloody nonsense!

Admittedly, when I first picked up George Bernard Shaw’s Pygmalion, I was expecting a wordy, twentieth-century social commentary superimposed upon a dated Greek myth, but was pleasantly surprised to learn that I was actually just reading My Fair Lady. With that being said, it must be noted that A)Shaw’s original play is much better, and B) the original title is irrevocably important to understanding Shaw’s original message, one which was clearly lost in the light-hearted musical for which this play might ultimately and unfortunately be remembered.

The original myth of Pygmalion deals with an Ancient Greek sculptor who falls in love with his own artistic masterpiece and asks the gods to bring his statue to life for him to love as a real woman. Shaw turns this love story into a work of feminist literature not unlike Ibsen’s A Doll’s House. Shaw’s Pygmalion, Henry Higgins, takes this mere flower-girl, Eliza, and comes to think of her as an artistic piece of his own. At no point does Higgins seem to appreciate Eliza, not even after he has transformed her into the masterpiece that he intended, and upon realizing this, Eliza chooses to leave him and the lifestyle that he has to offer her. In Shaw’s mind, the happy ending is Eliza’s newfound independence and her strength in walking away. However, the makers of My Fair Lady (must have been men) could not see the glory in this ending and insisted on turning Shaw’s work back into the love story from which the original name was derived, ultimately defeating Shaw’s purpose and turning an otherwise socially-illuminative play into family-friendly drivel.

Pygmalion

Shaw's writing style throughout the play is witty and dramatic which makes the play a quick-read. The characters (especially Eliza, Higgins, Pickering, and Mr. Doolittle) were layered in terms of motives, personality, and motives. I find Higgins truly captivating with his droll articulation and quips towards society and language; indeed, his flamboyancy with language and teaching and his interactions with Eliza kept my interest in the play focused and truly I enjoyed his monologues. Pickering is the gentleman, enough said; I love that he, the friend and partner to Higgins' experiment, is the foil to Higgins' absent-minded professor. Mr. Doolittle is a greedy, unembarrassed, scandalous, albeit honest man. I find his little quips towards society truly not his own, more so from Shaw's own thoughts (meaning Mr. Doolittle, himself, is Shaw's weapon of criticism towards society). Finally, I find Eliza adorable. Sure, she is so hard to understand, that I had to find a audio version of this play so I could understand what she was saying (and even then, I had to come up with she was saying); however, this is where I like to say an audio version of the play truly helped. It made the play become much more, and--especially in Eliza's case--the language of the characters became more distinct and I truly enjoyed it. Overall, wonderful play, interesting characters, and fascinating dialogue.

CYRANO! CYRANO!

Well, what can I say about Cyrano. This play is absolutely exquisite. The structure, the plot, and the message all engaged me. The play is stark contrast from the previously read Hedda Gabler, but a pleasant one indeed. Even though the plot is Romantic, the language in the prose driven play is witty and cunning. I love the way that even though Cyrano has a large nose and is not socially accepted, he finds a way to out wit those who try bring him down. In the case of Roxanne, I found it ironic that Cyrano stood for justice and honesty, but her and Christian managed to deceive her on many occasions for the sake of love. Roxanna falls in love with Cyrano's soul but with Christian's body. Yes, the play was well crafted, but at times I found it diffucult to keep up withthe small insignificant characters, especially in the beginning when there is an abundance of characters with similar names. However, once the play moved forward I was really drawn to the language and the witty quotes within the plot.

Cyrano: "Tale as old as time"

Upon reading Cyrano De Bergerac I was very confused at first; I found the amount of French terms used in the play to be hard to understand. After taking the time to read it though, I really began to enjoy it. The concept behind this play has been used many times in modern film and theatre. For example, Cyrano parallels the Beast, in The Beauty and the Beast, in the way that they’re both first presented as mean, angry characters. As both stories progress, it becomes clear that they are both very loving people—and of course the obvious—neither are “physically attractive”. The story is timeless: An unattractive man loves a beautiful woman but is too scared to tell her. While, yes, it is a somewhat generic idea, Edmond Rostand did a great job of making it unique. One way that he accomplished this was by giving “the man in love” a huge nose; this gave valid reasoning why he could not admit his love to Roxane and, well, its also pretty funny. Secondly, he took the idea and turned it into a love triangle—those are of course always very interesting. Lastly, the tangling of Cyrano and Christian’s web of lies adds to the comedic side of the story, while the fact that Cyrano does not get to be with his love, provides the tragedy. Creating the tale as a tragic comedy is something quite different than the others. Just the idea of a tragic comedy in general is not something that is common or easy to pull-off. I admire the author’s way of dealing with the clichés associated with similar stories.

Cyrano the great!

Cyrano was certainly a very well done play. My initial gut reaction was o great another thou art play with outdated language that will need to be deconstructed in order for me to understand this work. I was surprised that it was not that necessary. The playwrites contextual clues allowed for a lot of understanding of the work. His long nose was also very comical I especially love his dialogue with the Viscount in the begining was what really got me interested in the character's extreme wit and intelligence. It is such a shame that he was filled with such self doubt that he never directly pursued Roxanne and only indirectly through Christian.

Beloved Cyrano!

Cyrano De Begerac is a beloved character with some insecurities that keep him from expressing his true feelings. Roxane, being the beautiful but naive woman she is does not realize until it is too late that who she really loves is Cyrano because she fell in love with the words on the paper not the man she believes wrote the words. To Roxane an obvious mate would be the young Christian but in all honesty his feelings for her were not real enough compared to the way Cyrano admired her. Cyrano's poems show his true feelings which is what made them so remarkably beautiful. Cyrano's delicate charm can cast over the reader making his tragic death in the end painful to bear.

The play really gives a message that not all beauty is external. Cyrano might have had a slightly larger nose than usual but he did not let it keep him from expressing his true and rare talent: the beauty of his words. Rostand's use of rhyming couplets make the play fun and unique. This is an unrealistic aspect because people do not speak in rhyme on a daily basis. Although the play may portray unrealistic aspects it is a beautifully written masterpiece that was an utter joy to read.

Sweet Cyrano

Beginning to end Cyrano de Bergerac is a wonderful play. Full of well developed characters and a tragic hero you can't help but love. At first I doubted Cyrano's motives behind helping Christian. However, was pleasantly surprised when I was proved wrong. Cyrano genuinely wants Roxane to be happy, so he helps Christian woo her. All the while hiding his true feelings and pain. He chose to keep his friendship with Roxane. He found it impossible for her to ever love him due to his appearance. He keeps his true feelings a secret throughout the play and finally to the grave. Only as he lay dying is it revealed to Roxane that Cyrano was the man writing the love letters she had thought were Christian's.

Another character I liked was Roxane. She genuinely loved Christian, or the man she believed him to be. She was real, and a loyal wife. She loved Cyrano as well, but she didn't know until the final act of the play, when it is revealed to her that Cyrano was really the one writing the love letters to her. As Cyrano is dying Roxane says, "I never loved but one...and twice I lose him"

Cyrano. RIP

In the play Cyrano De Bergerac, by Edmond Rostand, I found it extremely confusing at first, but a beautiful tragic love story. When I began reading the play, the first act was extremely tossed up for me, there were so many different characters that I had trouble understanding what was going on. Once the story started to unfold I was drawn to the character, Cyrano. In the first act I thought that Cyrano was a brute, a hard headed man who scared off everyone. He was unattractive with an air of solitude, he repelled anything with grace. As the story kept on progressing, I saw that he had softer sides, and once he professed his love for Roxan, I began to see his true colors. I feel that one of the touching parts of the play is when he has his rendezvous with Mrs. Roxan, and she announces her dying love for Christian De Neuvillette, a man she has never spoken to. Like a gentlemen, Cyrano accepts her wish to befriend this man, and basically fix them up, even though he loves her. As the story kept on going, I gained respect for Cyrano, as he wrote the profession love letter to Roxan, giving it to Christian acting as if it were he that wrote it. Or when he spoke words of love to Roxan while she was on the balcony, thinking it was Christian, although it was not he. When things went sour, and Cyrano, Christian, along with many others were shipped off to war, Cyrano still kept his word and wrote to her so many times, even though all the credit went to Christian! Even when Christian wanted Cyrano to tell her the truth, he was too courteous and timid to actually tell her it was he all along. I find it such a sad love story, because in reality she was so inlove with Cyrano, but he felt too insecure to to anything about it. The part that touched me the most was the very end, when he read “Christian’s” final love/death letter. It is so moving because little does she know, these are his words to her, and he reads this letter to her basically on his death bed! Once she realizes that all along, 15 years later, it was he who always loved her, he who captured her soul, and he who she always loved is the true tragedy. This story is such a tragic love story, and I believe for one, every audience loves this kind of theme.

We will always love you, Cyrano!

It is such a masterpiece!!! I loved Rostand’s genius wittiness in this play! Cyrano has become one of my favorite dramatic characters. Cyrano is perfect: he is as brave as can be, an example of man’s honesty, dignity, loyalty, and honor. Moreover, he is a philosopher and a poet, with a deep soul, endless love and compassion for others, and outstanding intelligence. Its not a surprise Roxane falls in love with him- how can a woman not to? His love for her is so magnificent; he even helps her to marry another- a man Roxane thinks she is in love with. Yes, Christian is beautiful, and a good guy, but he cant even compare with Cyrano, who could have had a wonderful future with Roxane, if only he stopped being ashamed of his unflattering physical nuance. It is heartbreaking to see how Cyrano punishes himself for being ugly. Fear of his own appearance tragically caused fearless and the noblest of all noble men Cyrano his happiness. But he keeps confessing his feelings to Roxane through Christian, while making her lose her head for his incredible personality and richness of his soul. She finally finds out who her true love is ten yeas after, on Cyrano’s deathbed. All these years Cyrano dedicated himself to her.  His passion never died out. So didn’t his remarkable will to fight for justice and truth. His brilliance, wit, kind heart, intelligence, romance and tenderness has been for centuries and perhaps will forever continue winning over hearts of women all over the world. And we really don’t care about his damned nose! J

Selfless Love

I do not even know where to begin. The beginning of the play was tough for me to get through until the end of Act one. It is just so many things taking place and so many characters involved in this script. Once I got pass all of that I realized that this is a play about selflessness. I must admit that I did not become a fan of Cyrano until Act two and I began to see who he really was. Cyrano came across as big and bad and he acted as if nothing affected him. The viewer can see in Act two that his beauty is something he battles with. This makes him seem real because we all have some part of our body that we are not 100% happy with. I truly believed that Cyrano had negative intentions when he offered to help Christian with his love letters to Roxane but, I soon realized that his only intention was for Roxane to be happy. In the end it is evident that Cyrano chose his friendship with Roxane over a "physical" love . All of his actions to make Roxane happy was selfless . He truly forgot about what he wanted and focused on what she wanted so that she could remain happy. This play showed that beauty definitely starts from within and manifests itself without.

'twas whaaaat?

Overall, I have to say that I enjoyed reading Cyrano de Bergerac by Rostand. Cyrano was a very clever yet tragic character. Clever, obviously because of his swift comebacks to the remarks made by other characters like De Valvert and De Guiche. He also has a very refined, thoughtful, and thought-provoking way of speaking; words are DEFINITELY his strong-suit. However, he is tragic in the fact that he feels as if he does not deserve love, at least in the romantic sense, because he does not fit what society deems aesthetically pleasing to the eye.

At first, I thought that when Cyrano found out that Roxane loved Christian, and he her, that he would only pretend to help Christian pursue Roxane and really sabotage any chance at a relationship they had together. Obviously, he was a more good-hearted character than I gave him credit for. Cyrano actually aids Christian in charming Roxane, masking his heartache and remaining silent of his true love in the process. It has to be hard helping another man to "woo" the woman for whom you bear a love so strong that you would put aside your own happiness just to give her a chance at that same happiness. That's sweet and all, but am I the only one who finds it extremely weird that he is in love with his own cousin?!? Different time period or not, that's just not natural.

But any who,

Cyrano has a very definitive struggle, both internal and external, with his nose. He feels that no woman could ever truly love him because she would not be able to see past his nose, which is often the subject of ridicule. Though he is not traditionally good-looking, he has the gift of expressing what others can not. His heart bleeds from the tip of his pen and onto a page, every stroke saturated with a love unrequited. As opposed to Christian, who is very handsome, but essentially has no depth. I believe the message of the play is that when we know a person's heart/soul and the true beauty that lies within it, we can look past the physical, which is temporary and not indicative of the condition of a person's heart.

As much as I liked the play, I was completely lost at least twice during each scene. This is because like OLDER plays (Shakespeare, Rostrand, etc.), Cyrano de Bergerac contains a lot of "'twas", "'twill", "'faith", "fain", etc. and I personally have never been able to understand it. Maybe this type of language adds to the romanticism of the play, but it also adds to my frustration and confusion.

Rostand's Cyrano de Bergerac

Edmond Rostand’s Cyrano de Bergerac, with its obvious criticism towards society, is in fact a great example of early Modernism. Even with its extravagant and concise stage directions, however, it is not, like Ibsen’s Hedda Gabler, a work of realism. In my opinion, the characters lack the sort of depth necessary, sometimes coming across as flat while at other moments appearing almost ridiculous in their words and actions. That being said, I do believe Rostand makes two rather effective, not to mention lasting, points in his acclaimed play.

The more evident of these two points is demonstrated by Cyrano’s extreme lack of confidence in regards to his physical appearance. Rostand’s title character, revered by all others in the play for his mastery in nearly every skill that has acquired, is confident in his deeds and clearly in his wit, however he is crippled by his own embarrassment over his nose. This one flaw is able to prevent him from getting the one thing he wants most: love. Ironically, he believes his nose is that one flaw, while in reality it becomes abundantly clear that is his own self-consciousness that is holding him back.

Secondly, and more subtly, I believe that Rostand’s true point is an even more timeless moral: lying for a good cause will only cause ruin in the end. Christian and Cyrano, for all their supposedly good intentions, spend the majority of the play deceiving Roxane. Not coincidentally, by the end of the play, both Cyrano and Christian have died without ever living with Roxane’s love, and Roxane, through no fault of her own, has had to feel the pain of losing the “man” she fell in love with twice and is doomed to spend her entire life alone, holding onto a memory of her one true love that never actually existed.

Both of these messages certainly carry on in the world today. As a matter of fact, the warning against being overly self-conscious holds truer today than in Rostand’s time, as society as become increasingly vain, and the vast majority of boys and girls growing into adulthood have to overcome their own feelings of no self-worth.

Perhaps a Bit Extensive

I think the settings Rostand creates are too large to fit on a normal stage (at least they are in my mind) and are too different for quick scenery changes. The play was also very long, and the cast was much larger than any I had seen before. Throughout the entire time I was reading, I kept thinking that perhaps this play would fare better as a movie. A large cast is normally expected for a movie, and the switches to different settings would be easier in a movie.

That being said, I really did enjoy the play. Cyrano completely impressed me throughout the play. Despite his disfigurement, he became a great warrior, poet, and speaker. He was chivalrous to the women (except for Lise who needed to reprimanded anyway) and, even though he had many enemies, he was a true friend to the ones he had. He also gave up Roxanne to Christian because he wanted her to be happy. Sure, he helped Christian deceive her by making her think Christian was poetic, but he did it to make her happy. Even when Christian was going to tell Roxanne the truth about their relationship Cyrano tried to stop him, and as Christian died he said the Roxanne loved Christian not himself. He also let Roxanne hold onto the thought that Christian was the one who wrote to her for all those years so as not to ruin what she had. Roxanne only found out in the end by an accident, and Cyrano still tried to convince her otherwise. Cyrano was certainly a good man.

Cyrano

Cyrano De Bergerac is beautiful. As I read the play, I found myself completely enamored by Cyrano’s love for Roxane, and Cyrano himself for his valor and wit. Indeed, Cyrano is truly heroic; however, that heroism does not stem from his dueling skills or victories in battle. Cyrano is a hero, because he is prepared to forfeit his own happiness to bring happiness to others. For instance, before Christian dies, Cyrano tells Christian that Roxane truly loves him; to further the valor he hides from Roxane that he wrote the letters, not Christian.

Cyrano’s nose also provides a unique aspect of his character. With all of his wonderful qualities (from his eloquence to his bravery), Cyrano’s nose stops him from having true love. I find this ironic for such a well-cultured, courageous and poetic man to impede on his love because of his fear of rejection. However, I also think this is what makes Cyrano more relatable to the audience, because that fear is common. There is certain imagery when looking into the love triangle between Christian, Roxane, and Cyrano. For example, I see Christian as the body and Cyrano as the soul, and both captivate Roxane. That is why Roxane’s confession that she would love Christian whether he was grotesque or not, reveals to Cyrano that Roxane loves the soul, the letters— that she loves Cyrano.

(In addition, I find it funny that we read this romantic story after Hedda Gabler.)

Hedda

Play Review

In the play Hedda Gabler, by Henrik Ibsen, I experienced many emotions. I felt that the author did a wonderful job at portraying an array emotions and scenarios that would be life like. When I began the story I was drawn immediately to the devious character of Hedda because of her snide remarks and rude comments. I first had the unpleasant feeling about this character when she made an uncalled for remark about the bonnet, "Look there! She has left her old bonnet lying about on a chair.... Just fancy, if any one should come in and see it!" As I continued the story and found that Hedda had intentionally negatively commented about the bonnet knowing it was Aunt Julia's, I found the whole scenario to be repugnant. As the story progressed her character consistently insulted and demeaned others, it was clear to see she was not an admirable woman. Another thing that struck me about the story was when Eilert Lovborg  was introduced into the story. I found it extremely odd when he was speaking to Hedda about their history together. This scene in the play drew me in, and made me wonder, it intrigued me for more information. As more characters such as Mrs. Elvsted were introduced into the story the plot was unraveling and the climax was reaching its capitol. As I caught on to the story, i was shocked when I found out how devious Hedda was. Once she started to medal with the relationship of Mr. Lovborg and Mrs. Elvsted i was disgusted at the way she manipulated Mr. Lovborg with their history. Even though she was married and not necessarily happy, I feel as though she should have rejoiced for the potential Mr. Lovborg had with his career, and love life. Instead the fact that she used her power over Lovborg to kill himself made me sick, i feel as though she was only jealous of the relationship that Mr. Lovborg had with Mrs. Elvsted! Once she had burned to manuscript, and lied to everyone except George, I could feel it inside that I truly disliked her. When she had committed suicide, I honestly found it nothing less that appropriate. She had torn apart lives, and thought only of herself. This play was very well thought through, and extremely dramatic.

O Hedda!

Hedda Gabbler

O Hedda, what an interesting and amusing character she turned out to be through the course of the play. It was certainly apparent from her first introduction that she would be of particular amusement due to her snide remarks and overall disinterest with he husband and rudeness toward his Aunt. This play was a fantastic read that initially I was not interested in at all. However, from reading just the first few pages I found it to be engrossing. Trying to predict the story and what the eventual manipulations of Hedda would lead to was a labor that I am not generally accustomed too. I tend to predict where movies and novels will lead the reader with a high degree of accuracy however, this was a work in which Ibsen completely surprised the reader with the demise of the heroine (this reader at least)... Or vileness depending on how you look at her. Who would have thought because of her failed manipulations of Ejlert that she would opt for suicide. I also wonder if Ibsen meant for any sort of connection between her choice of the sister pistol to the one that ended Ejlerts life.

Ibsen, play 1!

Henrik Ibsen's "Hedda Gabler" shows wonderful characterization. Each character has their own little quirk that is noticed in there dialogue and/or actions. The characterization gave me more of a realistic outlook on the play and into each character which I enjoyed very much. For instance, Tesman ends many of his statements with "no?". It is as if he is asking for recognition of everything he says. "No?" could practically be translated into, am I right?, and although the question is usually rhetorical it seems to exemplify that he is hoping for some sort of approval of everything he says. Another interesting characterization is how Hedda shows aspects of both the heroine and the villain. Entering into an unhappy relationship and living a life that she initially did not intend gives the reader the sympathetic side of Hedda's character. Her other side is her own form of amusement, to cause disruption in others lives all because she feels that she is stuck to live out a life which to her is filled with nothing but boredom. I liked how the way they spoke and acted brought them to life for the audience to visualize.

I would also like to briefly state that the ending took me by surprise. I did catch her slightly suicidal jokes but because of her previous snide sarcastic comments I did not expect her to actually commit suicide. So the ending did take me by surprise but overall it was quite enjoyable.

It's all in the detail

What stood out to me when I first start reading the play was the detail of the stage directions in each Act. "A small sofa fits into the right -hand corner with a small round table in front of it" versus stating a small sofa in the back of the room with a coffee table in front of it. This of course is when realism comes into play . Every single detail matters from the rising of the sun to the number of bouquets arranged on the table. I do not oppose realism, but I never realized until recently the challenges that it can present for a designer. It can take away a sense of creativity because everything that is needed in each act is stated exactly the way it should be . In my opinion, it does not leave much room for personal interpretation.

Post #1, Hedda Gabler

The scene in which we are introduced to Hedda Gabler, we can already sense that she is annoyed and nearly disgusted with Tesman and his family. It is clear that Hedda does not love Tesman, and resents her marriage for a promised financial security. Hedda seems to fear a life of boredom, and is constantly searching for beauty and excitement--even if she has to orchestrate it herself. Creating such drama is fairly easy for Hedda, being that the men and women in this play are unaware of the malice she secretly possesses. They think very highly of her, confide in her, and the men are all very much so attracted to her. Even though Hedda finds that no man has ever been exciting, bold, or courageous enough for her, she is still inexplicably attracted to Lovburg. Perhaps a newly found opportunity for control over Eilerts fate, adds to her twisted attraction to him. Nearing the end of the play, Hedda has successfully created an amazing scandal. She is completely overjoyed thinking that Eilert has shown the ultimate sign of beauty and courage by killing himself. Upon discussing in secret with Brack, she discovers that his death was not self-inflicted. She also realizes that she no longer has control and shall be eternally in debt to Brack, for he knows that the pistol used was Heddas. The reason she ended her life may have been her curiosity to see first-hand why courage was so elusive, or maybe the realization that her grand scheme was coming to quite a messy, disappointing end. Perhaps she simply wanted to prove that she had courage and the ultimate control of her life.

Spoiled Little Girl...

While I agree with everyone that Hedda is a wonderfully written show, with well developed plot and characters. I could not help the annoyance I felt with Hedda's character. She was a manipulative woman who was unhappy with her life. She had everything and everyone wanted to please her and yet she s still unhappy. She seems to thrive on unhappiness and the power she can derive from the unhappiness of others. For example when Ejlert tells Hedda he wishes to kill himself, and she hands him a pistol and basically says have at it. Then in the end she kills herself. Overall it was an intense show, full of tragedy with a hint of humor tossed in, that I enjoyed much more than I had originally expected.

I Got Carried Away....

Hedda Gabler is truly a tragedy. Sure, it has moments of wit and sarcasm, but misfortune greatly outweighs farce. Though even during such moments of wit, Ibsen reveals tidbits of information about different characters (e.g. Miss Tesman’s questioning of Hedda’s fertility, Hedda’s whispers of indignation towards her marriage, etc.). These tidbits make the dialogue fast-paced, which is a wonderful asset for reading. However, the characters themselves and their interactions with each other create the distinct, alluring, yet tragic atmosphere of Hedda Gabler.

From the very beginning, interactions between Hedda and other characters serve as windows into the characters’ psyche. For instance, Hedda’s moments with Thea expose Thea’s naivety and Hedda’s cold mastery of ethos and pathos (deceitful persuasion); in addition, Hedda’s meeting with Lovberg reveals a younger, riskier side of Hedda and a passionate and romantic longing from Lovberg. Indeed, interactions and dialogue unveil certain nuances of each character. For instance, Mr. Tesman is an insufferable, garrulous chatterbox, but he is also devoted, easy-going, and genuinely humble. How do such traits appear? His interactions with Hedda? Brack? I find Mrs. Tesman’s boasting of his nephew’s scholarly attempts (collecting notes and sorting through others’ papers) illuminating, because even Jorgen knows that what he is doing is purely simple work. His admiration for Lovberg’s newest manuscript on the future only heightens such thought, contrasting the men’s intellect and drive; however, this allows Jorgen to foster his skills (more so his confidence), especially when he takes up on completing his colleague’s work.

As the plot progresses, Hedda becomes more and more the center of the interactions. Ibsen allows his audience to peek into Hedda’s restrained soul, fostering a strange relationship between her and the audience. We can see her as a hero, a villain, and a victim. Indeed, her daring qualities are ones of the individual—dangerous qualities for her, a woman repressed and bored in her setting. Her roguish qualities are venomous, especially moments where she exhibits silent wrath to herself and everyone around her, distant envy towards Thea, and gluttonous boredom towards society. However, interestingly her deceitful and bold traits make her into a victim of her time. In addition, Ibsen’s setting for the play—the drawing room—becomes a symbol for Hedda, because she is trapped there, limited in entertainment and friends, which makes only her interactions even more tense as the play develops. I find Hedda likable, charming, prideful, regal, malicious, dishonest, and simply human. She is trapped, bound by society’s chains; and in the end, death becomes her release. Therein, for me, lays the tragedy of Hedda Gabler.

Ibsen's Hedda Gabler

Personally, it is always a joy to read Ibsen. I enjoy the socially charged content and examining the psychology of each character. While reading Hedda Gabler by Henrik Ibsen, I would often relate the plot to A Doll's House, another on of Ibsen's plays. One of the most striking things about the play is the character development. I found it interesting that the setting of the play rarely changes; the characters drive the plot. I think that throughout the play, the author makes an interesting commentary on socal grievances that plaugued his time as well as ours. The true nature of Hedda's character is indeed questionable. I found it hard to distinguish her manipulative tactics from her actual self; however this is the beauty of the play. Hedda Gabler embodies a human flaw that we all have: obsession with the self. Though Hedda signifies a magnified version of this human flaww, her actions put people that she "cared" for and people that she disregarded in great danger. One might observe this as evidence of insanity, but I think that the author is making a commentary on the nature of humanity. In the end, when Hedda realizes that she is under fire and that the manipulating she has done will lead to her demise, she opts for suicide. This could be seen as cowardly, but I believe that it's just another example of her obsession with control. While reading, I loved experiencing a full range of emotion, which for me, defines a successful play.

Blog #1

I actually really enjoyed Hedda Gabler. It was a very serious yet tragic play with some comedic undertones. The title character, Hedda, seemed to be alienated or suffocated by those around her. She was a strong woman who knew what she wanted, and was very distant and unemotional in her relationships, which I could personally relate to. Hedda struggles to escape the influences and expectations of the world that surrounded her and live her life for herself. Well, that is, until she took her fate into her own hands. To many people, Hedda would be considered insane, but when you are an unconventional individual existing within a conventional society full of conventional people, “crazy” is always the go-to label. However, Hedda did display some very aggressive, uncontrollable, and even irrational behavior at times in the play. One scene that I found particularly interesting was when Hedda was basically interrogating Mrs. Elvsted. She was very manipulative in her ways in order to get the information she sought. This showed that she would do anything to get whatever it is that she wants, which is not the noblest characteristic, in my opinion. She was also really flirtatious with Judge Brack, since he is rich and possibly more vulnerable to be taken advantage of. Her dominance and intensity were undeniable, and she is very unapologetic about her actions. She definitely did not represent most women, whether from her time period or not. Nevertheless, I believe Hedda represented a real person; an individual; someone who was not ethical, polite, or lived society’s vision or expectation of perfection all the time.

Shock and Awe

I found Hedda Gabler absolutely fascinating. The play was serious and deep and yet there were times when I found it amusing such as when Miss Tesman believed that Hedda was pregnant. Besides the small comic relief, the play was very serious. Hedda was a ruthless and cunning woman that only cared for herself. She toyed with others for fun and threw them away when she was done. She also claims that she has lived a good life, but when Mrs. Elvsted appears and tells Hedda about how she has dared to do what Hedda would never; Hedda immediately becomes jealous which shows that she wasn’t completely happy with her life and sets a plan to ruin Mrs. Elvsted. I feel sympathetic towards Tesman for marrying Hedda because he is under the impression that Hedda loves him as much as he loves her which is wrong. She only chose him because he was the best of her many suitors at the time and basically promised to give her everything she ever wanted. Hedda was only out to control anyone that crossed her path. The ending was amazing. She gave Lovborg the pistol telling him to go kill himself which would be the ultimate control over someone, but when he does, it completely backfires on her, and she is now under the control of Brack. Instead of dealing with such a thing, Hedda kills herself which is still showing how she is always in control and no one will ever control her. She is such an awesome character and I am completely impressed by her and her interactions with the other characters.