Hedda Gabbler is one of the famous play written by Henrik Ibsen. In the TV version of Hedda Gabbler in 1963, it was adapted by Phil Reisman and directed by Alex Segal. In the film is more fast pace, dramatic and intensify on the social class on different roles, the line in the act is more and colloquial while the original text is more calm and conversational in an equivalent way.
As an audience of both text and film of Hedda Gabbler, I can understand why filmmaker made changes on the line from original text Ibsen. “Upon my word, I don’t believe they are stirring yet.”(782) The film version is easier to be understand by audiences when filmmaker modify the line on the Television version of Hedda Gabbler.
In the film version, the play is more dramatic and emphasize the social status and class between different roles. For instance, in the opening scene, Miss Tesman was on upstairs quite listening the outside of the room of Hedda’s and says “They are not even up yet.” Meanwhile, Berta was still remain on the floor, she look up too Miss Tesman and answered “With the steam is so late, and Mistress would insist unpacking until she goes to bed.” while the original text was arranged more equivalent way when Miss Tesman comes in from the hall and followed by Berta with a bouquet wrapped in paper.
In the friendship between her and Mrs. Elvested, we can see when youthful and charm of Mrs. Elvsted walked in makes her feel insecure and caused a problem, as the guys shifted attention away from Hedda to her. In the film version is more dramatics on different roles and focus on the personality of Hedda Gabbler and already conveyed that she is spoiled.
In the film, the filmmaker also make the main character Hadda Gabbler appear to be much older. In the profile setting of the original text by Ibsen, Hedda Gabbler is a young lady who is 29 years old, but in the movie, she (starring by Ingrid Bergman) is appeared much older, as she announced several times that she has had to make the hard decision of settling down with Tesman because of her age.
In conclusion, the film is more emphasized not by her beauty but for her cunning, dishonest manipulation personality towards to men. We did not see nearly as many emotional outburst with the play, with the play showing her character with less dramaticism, Hedda’s sense of entitlement-letting reader comes to the conclusion that she is “spoiled.”

The film version of Hedda Gabler filmed in 1963 followed closely to the original text by Henrik Ibsen in 1890. By closely following to the original text, as viewers, we can receive a better sense of how the scenery may look like in life. Although there are some subtle change made by the director of the film,  Alex Segal. In the text, the drawing-room is described sounded very spacious, but in the film, the setting was very compacted together, and it did not give the feel of a large drawing-room as written in the text. Also with the settings, there was no sight of the piano where Mrs. Hedda Tesman made complaints about, and later even removed out of the drawing-room as it is in the text.

Other than the setting, the characters in the film acted closely to the text, and if not, it gave the audience a better sense of the relationships between characters that the text cannot give. Especially the relationship between Tesman and Miss Tesman. Miss Tesman’s worries over Tesman on his six months honeymoon, and his payment for the house that him and his wife are to live in, with some of these actions of her’s, it really displays the deep bond between an aunt and nephew. Although the chronology part followed closely along with the text, there are some parts that were left out. The noticeable one was the conversation between Tesman and Miss Tesman where Tesman asked Miss Tesman “Have you heard anything about Eilert – since I went away, I mean?” (786). It is interesting that director Segal has chosen to remove that part of the conversation out because Eilert Løvborg is in some way significant character in the play as he and Hedda Tesman has had a relationship in the past. The movie really helped the viewers to see how frustrated Hedda was with her new family, and although its written in the play, I believe it creates a better image in our heads of how she may feel at that very moment with the visuals.

The original text of Hedda Gabler by Henrik Ibsen is masterfully interpreted by Alex Segal’s film starring Ingrad Bergman. In the film/play of Hedda Gabler we are introduced a few dynamic characters that are essential to the understanding of these two pieces. The representation of Berte, Aunt Julie, Hedda, and George is where we can draw the similarities and contrasts from the play to the film. The film is certainly an interpretation of Ibsen’s text, both portray Hedda as an obnoxious and self-centered human being. The film gives the audience a more rounded view of Hedda because in the film you are able to see her body language and facial expressions which show how she is truly feeling throughout the scenes. I think the director of the film chose to highlight the relationship between Aunt Julie and George to a much greater extent than the text does. In the film you really see the importance Aunt Julie has in George’s life and how she would do absolutely anything to make him happy. Their relationship is more of a mother and son’s than the text depicted.  A key contrast between the play and film is the role of the maid Berte. In Ibsen’s text it seems that Berte plays a big role and is constantly interacting with George and Aunt Julie, while in the film her presence is underwhelming and not crucial to the first two acts. It makes sense for a filmmaker to want to diminish the roles of the minor characters and focus more time on the dynamic characters within the play. The depiction of George in the play and the film is certainly consistent, the text introduces him as a scholar who loves books and lives a mundane life. George talks about how he wants to fill the extra rooms in his house oppose to kids with his wife Hedda. The play and the text give the audience subtle different views of the characters, but overall the film is a good interpretation of Ibsen’s original text.

Both the film and the text show Hedda’s impatient and hostile personality, however, it is more difficult to imagine the scenes happening through the text because the text did not make the characters come to life, but the film did, and it truly showed the readers what Ibsen intended. The film’s interpretation of the text is mainly accurate and perfectly displays the emotions and intensity of the scenes. For example, Hedda’s lack of affection towards both Miss Tesman and her own husband. The film also shows us that Hedda’s bitterness towards Tesman is very apparent, and yet Tesman shows nothing but love and affection for Hedda.

The opening scene of when Miss Tesman was over at their new home, Hedda showed that she was not fond of Miss Tesman by being extremely rude, but Hedda’s actions and reactions seemed even more negative in the text because the text cannot capture a person’s emotions and actions as well as the film. Her reaction to Tesman asking her to be more friendly with Aunt Julie was off-putting, “Tesman, for God’s sake, don’t ask me to do that. I’ve told you that before. I’ll try to call her Aunt once in a while and that’s enough” (Act I, 789). Hedda was still reluctant on treating Aunt Julie with more warmth even though she is family just further proves her unpleasant personality.  

In my opinion, the text did lack the image I needed in order to fully comprehend the emotions in the story and to fully capture each character’s personality. I had a slight mental idea of both acts, but the film gave me the full image with more detail and showed me the relationship between each of the characters. Because the filmmakers needed to fit as much of the plot into such a short amount of time, much of the smaller, less important details were left out.

Released in early January of 1963, “Hedda Gabler” starring Ingrid Bergman is a successful film adaptation of its original written by Henrik Ibsen. After watching the first ten-minute opening, I have noticed several changes to the original that director Alex Segal has made in his film version. The differences are subtle yet noticeable. First, in regards of the movie setting, even though the drawing room comes across as “large, pleasantly and tastefully” as it does in Ibsen’s illustration, the furniture is arranged differently. For example, the portrait of General Gabler hangs above a wooden table instead of a sofa. Moreover, in trying to capture the grandiose features of the drawing room, Segal seems to drift his focus away from natural scenery through the window, where “the covered veranda”, along with “trees in autumn color” can be seen. Another and perhaps more significant change that catches my attention is the diminishing presence of the maid Berte. Apparently, in Ibsen’s version, Berte interacts more frequently with her former master Ms. Juliane and Mr. Tesman. The purpose is perhaps to get rid of scenes where the supporting characters don’t necessarily help to demonstrate the disposition of the main ones. Last but not least, besides the maid, minor adjustment has also been made to the protagonist Hedda to narrow the magnitude of her impoliteness to Aunt Juliane. This is most evident in the manner by which Hedda greets Juliane. In fact, she grudgingly kisses Mr. Tesman’s loving aunt on her cheek instead of merely “extending her arm”. Additionally, at the end of the film’s opening, Hedda showed barely any reaction to Aunt Juliane’s kiss on her hair. On the other hand, the original demonstrates how she explicitly expresses her discomfort and disrespect to Miss Tesman through her saying “Ah! Let me out!” Overall, the film adaptation of “Hedda Gabler” strives to grasp the meat of the first part of Act I by curtailing unnecessary natural scenes and the presence of minor character. However, would it be better to let Hedda stay as impolite and as ungracious as described in the original?

“Hedda Gabler” is one of the most interesting play written by Henrik Ibsen, a Norwegian playwright. The play has been adapted for the screen many times. One of them, which is the most popular, is a television production of the play in 1963, with Ingrid Bergman. In the first act, in the film and in the lay, are introduced the main characters of the play and their problems. From the beginning of the first act we learn that Hedda is married to George Tessman, but she is still called Hedda Gabler, not Tessman. She is brought up in high social rank as the daughter of General Gabler. Hedda give us the impression to detest all about George Tesman and his lifestyle. In her first appearance, she maliciously offends Aunt Julie, by complaining that it is the servant’s hat lying in the armchair, while she had bought the hat for Hedda’s sake.

After Miss Tessman leaves, George tells Hedda to be kinder to Aunt Julie. He also asks Hedda to call Miss Tessman “Aunt Julie”, but she refuses saying that she will call her Aunt once in a while and that’s enough. All this because she do not feel part of the family. We does not see this dialog in the film. Maybe the filmmaker wants to show to the audience that even Tesman knows his wife’s discourtesy, he do not want to accept the real problems. Being the daughter of well-known General Gabler, Hedda is used to people always show respect and obey to her. In fact she treats her husband in the same disrespectful way as she does with other people. Tesman tries to please his wife and fulfill all her desires so that she can feel content and happy. He is concerned in pleasing Hedda and is not capable to understand that she does not love him. He also refuses to accept any problem in his marriage. I think the play gives us a clearer description of characters than film.

The portrayal of the characters plays a fundamental role in comparing the film and the text of Hedda Gabler. We can see a more dynamic interaction between Tesman and his Aunt Julie in the film. Although the text gives a noticeable bond between the two characters, the film captures the unmistakable fondness that Tesman and Miss Tesman have for each other. Their way of speaking to each other is significantly less formal in the film, which tends to support the notion of familiarity. Additionally, films depict a character’s expression and we see that Tesman has a very cheerful disposition. On the other hand, Hedda remains stoic and bad-tempered. The contrast between the groom and the bride is obvious by Hedda’s lack of acknowledgement for Miss Tesman. Both the film and the text portray Hedda to be unapologetic for her rudeness.

The pace of the piece tends to be quicker in the film. Often, some details are omitted in the play such as in the scene when Tesman comes back from escorting his aunt out the door. In the text, Hedda says, “But where did she (Miss Tesman) get her manners, flinging her hat around any way she likes here in the drawing room. People just don’t act that way” (789). This was left out of the play an Tesman simply tells his wife to be more affectionate toward his aunt. Additionally, the film leaves out the part when Hedda is seemingly dissatisfied with the piano in the room. Personally, I believe the text brings out Hedda’s personality more clearly. She is depicted as more materialistic and selfish in the original text, primarily because the small details that reinforce her self-indulgent personality is not as apparent in the film. Although the film does not entirely capture the essence of the characters, it does provide a dynamic insight of the relationships between them. The actors’ tone and their expressions make it easier to understand their interactions.

Read Acts I and II of Hedda Gabler. Then, using the link below, watch the opening scene of the film version of the play, made for television in 1963, starring Ingrid Bergman.

Watch until Thea Elvsted enters. In a blog entry of 300-400 words, compare the written and film versions of the opening of the play. How might we view the film as an interpretation of Ibsen’s original text? Where has the filmmaker made changes to Ibsen? To what effect? What do we notice when we watch the film that we may have missed upon first reading the play?

The two narratives “The Loophole of Retreat” and “From the Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl” written by Harriet Jacobs resonate deeply with me and generations of Jacobs’ female readers. Her stories add important and dynamic increments to my understanding of the American slavery system from the standpoint of a woman slave. Jacobs successfully emphasizes the dreadful living conditions of African Americans in the 19th century as well as the inconceivably inhumane relationship between female slaves and their white male masters. Whereas Frederick Douglass reveals the petrifying conditions of those living and working on plantations under the barbaric tortures of their masters, Jacobs focuses more on the many challenges of slaves in their pursuit of freedom. Even though the two kinds of slaves were in two utterly polar contexts, either with or without freedom they both experienced horrifying situations. The image of “dripping blood” from the torturing scene of Douglass’s aunt was just as obsessing and haunting as Jacob’s bed (In “The Loophole of Retreat) which was “never occupied by anything but rats, mice and shingles.“ More interestingly, both elaborate on the separation of black mothers from their own children at birth if their babies were the offspring of their own masters. Nonetheless, the two authors demonstrates distinctive literary styles. While Douglass’s stories are well-known for heroic elements, those of Jacobs express a softer sentiment as she aims to relate her experience with women of differing races and classes.
2.
• According to U.S. Department of State, China is a source, transit and destination country for men, women and children subjected to forced labor and sex trafficking. A significant portion of this human slave business are women and children from neighboring Asian countries, including Vietnam, Burma and Laos.
• According to Gvnet.com, in my country Vietnam, hundreds of thousands of young women of sixteen to eighteen years of age, in trying to escape poverty, are being lured to foreign marriages with men of various shapes and sizes. Most of the victims were poor, unemployed and uneducated, according to the Vietnamese Prime Minister.
• In the U.K, the Modern Slavery Act 2015 is an Act of the Parliament which is designed to limit the activities relating to human trafficking and slavery. I find this very interesting in a sense that modern slavery, unlike that of the 19th century in America, takes many different forms. For example, in businesses’ supply chains, slavery emerges in the form of labors exploitation. Thus, a key component to the U.K.’s Modern Slavery Act 2015 lies in its ability to prevent businesses from using human slave and human trafficking as an implement to cut cost.