How Hedda Updates a 19th Century Masterpiece—Down to Its Explosive Finale

by

Hedda Gabler chooses to marry George Tesman despite his being a rather unremarkable and lower-class academic. While Hedda is lively, attractive, and comes from a prominent family, she finds Tesman appealing precisely because he is easily controlled. He’s devoted and won’t challenge her, allowing her to enjoy the social status of marriage without having to compromise her independent spirit.

Hedda’s marriage is advantageous because she deserves someone better than her husband. However, her attempts to find independence as a woman in a restrictive society lead to lies and plans that ultimately demonstrate how trapped she is by the expectations of a conservative, male-dominated world, resulting in a tragic and unhappy fate. Even at the end of the play, much about Hedda remains mysterious, despite her skill with indirect language and surprising honesty in a society that values repression. For over a century, directors and actors have tried to understand and portray this complexity, originally created by Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen in Hedda Gabler.

Henrik Ibsen, often called the founder of modern drama, created compelling female characters that continue to inspire artists today. While now considered his most famous work, Hedda Gabler, a play dealing with complex psychological themes, wasn’t initially well-received when it premiered in 1891. Although there haven’t been many film adaptations of Ibsen’s work, a new version of Hedda aims to change that. Directed by Nia DaCosta and starring Tessa Thompson, this reimagining of the classic play is bold, unconventional, and falls between DaCosta’s work on major franchises like Marvel and 28 Years Later.

Here’s how DaCosta’s film updates and complicates its already complex, legendary central figure.

A similar set-up from page to screen

The new film, available on Prime Video starting October 29th, updates the story’s setting from Oslo to 1950s England. Here, Hedda (played by Thompson) arrives at a grand estate with her financially struggling husband, George (Tom Bateman). The estate was bought with money from Judge Brack (Nicholas Pinnock), a friend of Hedda’s father who exerts a powerful influence over her. Traditionally, the play uses Hedda’s family name, highlighting her struggle against controlling men. This version removes the surname, symbolizing a complete rejection of societal expectations and a sense of emptiness that Hedda herself doesn’t understand.

After a long and expensive honeymoon, the couple is planning a large party, but Hedda is preoccupied with the news that writer and sociologist Eileen Lovborg will be there. Lovborg is making a comeback after struggling with alcoholism, and her new book, while successful, is relatively short. She’s committed to staying sober, and her presence quickly becomes central to Hedda’s story. While many people know Lovborg is queer, few realize she and Hedda had a brief romantic relationship in the past.

George was practically guaranteed a university professorship – a position he and his wife, Hedda, desperately needed to maintain their expensive lifestyle. However, with Lovborg finally getting his life back on track, George’s chances are now uncertain. Hedda’s old classmate, Thea Clifton, unexpectedly arrives at the Tesman party before Eileen, bringing news of a major new work she and Lovborg have written, which is about to be published. Thea privately tells Hedda she’s worried Lovborg will ruin his progress by relapsing into his old habits – a weakness Hedda is eager to use to her advantage.

Gender-flipped characters and a new setting 

This new version of Hedda reimagines Ibsen’s characters with switched genders. Eilert Lovborg is now a bolder, more assertive counterpart to George Tesman, and while there’s attraction between them, it’s unclear if they’ve been romantically involved before. Thea Elvsted, previously a shy and innocent woman worried about choosing Lovborg over her husband, is now part of a complex love triangle with Hedda and Lovborg. This version of Thea is still anxious, but also more perceptive and guarded. Unlike the original, Lovborg isn’t simply a potential husband for Thea; their connection is more intimate and self-contained. This independence is what unsettles Hedda, who has suppressed her own desires and chosen a conventional life by marrying a less-than-inspiring man.

In the film, director DaCosta adds a layer to Hedda’s scheme to ruin Lovborg’s comeback by revealing they previously had a romantic relationship. This isn’t just about ensuring her husband’s job security; Hedda is also fiercely protective of her conventional way of gaining control and independence, especially when contrasted with other possibilities—like accepting her attraction to women and finding fulfillment in a loving, creative partnership (the play often describes Lovborg’s new book as a collaboration, a ‘lovechild’ between him and Thea).

As a fan, I was really surprised learning how much the movie changed things from the original play! For example, that big party Hedda and Tesman have all night? That’s completely made up for the film. In Ibsen’s version, everything happens over just two days, mostly in their living room. The only real partying happens offstage with Judge Brack, and it’s a messy situation involving Lovborg getting into trouble and losing his important manuscript on the way home.

Setting the story in 1950s England allows DaCosta to give her female characters more independence—they can pursue careers like becoming professors and enjoy a vibrant social life. Her version of ‘Hedda Gabler’ also features a Black woman in an interracial marriage. While society still includes judgmental people and those with prejudiced views, DaCosta expands on Ibsen’s original play with many more characters, emphasizing how competitive and unkind Hedda’s social circle is. This highlights that Hedda isn’t the only one who is calculating and focused on her own desires, but rather a particularly strong example of it.

An amped up finale with the same bitter aftertaste 

Hedda’s manipulation of Lovborg’s manuscript is central to the story, especially after Eileen relapses into addiction and loses it. DaCosta’s film, like Ibsen’s play, shows Hedda exploiting Thea’s feelings for Lovborg to wound his ego, goading him into drinking to prove he doesn’t need her care. The film takes a slight liberty with the plot—in the original play, Lovborg visits the Tesmans earlier in the day and initially declines the invitation to Brack’s party, whereas in the film, Eileen brings the manuscript to the party.

DaCosta’s film expands on Hedda’s plan to prevent Lovborg’s return, showing her meticulously trying to discredit him by publicly embarrassing Professor Greenwood, who holds the power to award a prestigious professorship. We also learn more about Eileen and Thea’s academic work through a scene where a drunken Eileen performs for a group of male professors, deliberately excluding Thea – revealing her desire for male validation. During this performance, Eileen discusses a developing theory about fetishism, a provocative subject that initially boosts her appeal but ultimately leaves her vulnerable to being labeled as unconventional when she falters.

The characters of George Tesman and Judge Brack in DaCosta’s film stay fairly true to Ibsen’s original versions, though with a few changes. While the play depicts Tesman as somewhat overweight and not very bright, and unable to genuinely resent Lovborg, the film’s Tesman – played by Bateman – is strikingly handsome and much more perceptive. He’s constantly anxious and frustrated by feeling ignored and insignificant, even though he’s fully aware of his own flaws.

Following Hedda’s destruction of Lovborg’s manuscript and his accidental shooting with one of her father’s guns, Tesman and Thea begin the painstaking process of reconstructing it by hand. This feels like a deliberate attempt by Tesman to exclude Hedda, and it pushes her to the edge. She believes her romantic rivals are forming a connection with a woman she considers inferior. The growing affection between Thea and Tesman, and their respect for Lovborg, is palpable, and despite Hedda’s efforts to control the situation, it seems Lovborg is still managing to disrupt her happiness.

Desperate, Hedda finds herself increasingly drawn to the manipulative Judge Brack, and the film closely follows their unsettling conversations. Brack, an older man who represents traditional authority, shares a disturbing connection with Hedda. She reveals her unhappiness in her marriage and her contempt for her husband, and he’s the only one who realizes she gave Lovborg the gun he used to take his own life. The film emphasizes Brack’s attraction to Hedda, his interest in her well-being, and his connection to her family, creating a growing sense of his controlling desire. The play’s disturbing climax – where Brack implies he’ll protect Hedda from scandal only if she submits to his advances – is equally chilling in the film, though it unfolds with more physical conflict. While Ibsen’s Hedda Gabler ends with Hedda’s suicide, the film’s Hedda offers a different final scene: she breaks free from Brack’s grip, runs across the lawn, and deliberately weighs herself down with stones before sinking into the pond.

The film ends on a hauntingly circular note, mirroring its beginning: Hedda rising from the water, a scene perhaps meant to suggest the hidden desires within her. She immediately learns Lovborg will be at her party. This final impression echoes the feeling of Ibsen’s original play from 1891. Hedda possesses a strong will, but her decision to exert it within the constraints of a traditional, male-dominated society ultimately harms, rather than empowers, her.

Read More

2025-10-29 19:07