Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 26, 2024 1:25:40 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2006 17:05:44 GMT -4
I was just coming to post about a story in the paper today about Hugo Weaving that mentions he is in Hedda Gabler with Cate Blanchett, and how much ass that would kick, and how many people I would kill and then walk over the bodies to get tickets, and dang me if wisteria hasn't gone and seen it!!! Please don't take it personally if I curse you unto the seventh generation.
|
|
zivvie
Sloane Ranger
Aragorn will always be beautiful.
Posts: 2,714
Mar 8, 2005 15:48:15 GMT -4
|
Post by zivvie on Mar 18, 2006 10:37:45 GMT -4
trivia du jour: Andrew Upton, who adapted the Hedda Gabler wisteria saw, is Cate's husband. /trivia du jour
|
|
nikluhmann
Guest
Apr 26, 2024 1:25:40 GMT -4
|
Post by nikluhmann on Mar 18, 2006 21:47:39 GMT -4
I saw Hedda at BAM last week and was not that impressed. Her performance was good and definitely different than the usual choices that actors make, but it was also *incredibly* brittle. It made it impossible to travel through a gamut of emotions with the character. The audience is never given the opp to empathize with the avenues unavailable to Hedda, you go straight to despising her.
|
|
susyhomewrecker
Guest
Apr 26, 2024 1:25:40 GMT -4
|
Post by susyhomewrecker on Mar 19, 2006 0:51:51 GMT -4
Question, nikluhmann. I'm assuming you're familiar with the play, so did the revision/adaptation (or whatever they're calling it) make it better or worse? Did the way it was written have any influence over the choices that Cate made that were different from other people who have played the same role?
|
|
|
Post by ladyboy on Mar 19, 2006 11:12:25 GMT -4
She was kind of brittle in the role. I felt that her mannerisms in playing Hedda were very modern - the way she held herself, threw herself across chairs, etc - and out of place in the play, as no one else was behaving modernly. (Does this make any sense?)
|
|
nikluhmann
Guest
Apr 26, 2024 1:25:40 GMT -4
|
Post by nikluhmann on Mar 19, 2006 13:37:44 GMT -4
Ladyboy is right, part of it was that this is a really modern interpretation. And Susy, yes, Upton & Co. did move it along rather briskly, so pretty soon into it, you're loathing Hedda without seeing that she's hurting others b/c she's hurting herself. The full gamut of emotions is missing.
It was good though.
Of course, I may have missed some stuff since I found myself saying "GOOD evening Mr. AN-der-SON" whenever Weaving was onstage.
|
|
susyhomewrecker
Guest
Apr 26, 2024 1:25:40 GMT -4
|
Post by susyhomewrecker on Mar 19, 2006 16:52:41 GMT -4
Thanks for the summary, guys! I thought it might be something along those lines (messing up plot/character development)... That always seems to happen when you f**k with classics, especially something as complex as Hedda Gabler. I wonder why they felt the need? It's probably true that modern audiences won't relate to Hedda's problems and 19th century Norwegian society, but it sounds like they didn't make her sympathetic anyway, so why bother?
|
|
|
Post by Auroranorth on Mar 20, 2006 11:30:08 GMT -4
Well, the same could be said about his A Doll's House, in a way, but people still flock to see it. It's the human element that makes it work.
On topic, I liked her in Elizabeth and LOTR, but hated The Aviator.
|
|
|
Post by Carolinian on Mar 20, 2006 14:03:51 GMT -4
For fans of Elizabeth, there's a sequel in the works: Elizabeth: The Golden Age with Geoffrey Rush (Walsingham) and Clive Owen (Raleigh). I've also read that Blanchett will reprise Elizabeth and Samantha Morton will play Mary Queen of Scots. It's being directed by Shekhar Kapur who directed Elizabeth.
|
|
chameleon
Guest
Apr 26, 2024 1:25:40 GMT -4
|
Post by chameleon on Mar 20, 2006 14:12:01 GMT -4
Negative review of Cate's Hedda Gabler in the New Yorker, although it's mainly Upton's interpretation they're trashing.
|
|