{shortcode-d28506f6f5302c2f4976cce25bf7c925d720f349}

“I am just a woman,” cries Eileen Lovborg (Nina Hoss) in Nia DaCosta’s bold adaptation of Henrik Ibsen’s 1891 play, “Hedda Gabler.”

While the film follows the same dark storyline as Ibsen’s original, DaCosta reinvigorates it with a 21st-century lens, highlighting a sapphic reimagining of Hedda’s romantic affair and utilizing a contemporary filmmaking style. While “Hedda” is a compelling adaptation of the original due to its bold concepts and strong performances, the film ultimately struggles to provide immersion into its imagined 1950s setting through the lack of subtlety in the script and overtly modern cinematographic techniques.

“Hedda” is a film centered around an aristocratic woman, played by Tessa Thompson, moving through the repressive society of the 1950s. Like some of Dacosta’s past films — including her debut “Little Woods” (2018) and “Candyman” (2021) — the film revolves around the female experience. Hedda is portrayed as a manipulative woman, but also a product of her environment, where her aristocratic background and restless desire for independence clash with her inability to find fulfillment in life. And despite being married to George Tesman (Tom Bateman), she seeks control and excitement in other areas of her life: Specifically, engaging in sexual relationships with family friend Judge Brack (Nicholas Pinnock) and her husband’s academic rival, Eileen Lovborg.

The film opens with a striking shot of Hedda holding a cigarette in her right hand, with the remnants of tears streaking down her face. Despite her disheveled appearance, her face is emotionless, stoic, as she is questioned by investigators about a shooting. DaCosta’s curation of this scene is beautiful, eerie, and intense, much like the rest of the film: The visual effects — and her attention to detail — contribute to the twisted storyline, and provide an altogether beautiful cinematic creation.

However, DaCosta’s contemporary filmmaking style complicates the film. While the film is supposed to take place in the 1950s, the advanced technical shots serve as a constant reminder that this film was made in the 21st century. For example, in the second opening scene, the film looks upon a lake: This shot is distorted, presumably with the use of a wide lens. While the presence of modern cinematic technique is consistent with other elements of this film, it cannot authentically immerse viewers in the time period.

DaCosta reinterprets Hedda’s character as a closeted bisexual woman — her past lover being Eileen Lovborg, who reminds Hedda of the other life she could have had, if she had not chosen the “easy way out.” Interestingly, the plot revolves around Eileen Lovborg and George Tesman’s competition for the position of professorship, which also introduces the theme of a woman finding her place in a male-dominated space. This reinterpretation of Eileen’s character and plot is a compelling twist to the classic play, making the film more relatable to the modern-day viewer and adding complexity to Hedda and Eileen’s characters.

While Hedda seeks out pleasure in the chaos she invokes, it’s clear that none of this fulfills her: The reflection of Eileen, an open and liberated gay woman, challenges her to look inwards at her hidden desire. She finds herself between her past lover, whose gender inherently adds a layer of challenge to her career aspirations, and her husband, who promises her stability and wealth if she can secure him his professorship.

Thompson does an excellent job of portraying the complicated character of Hedda. While Hedda is inherently a selfish and manipulative woman who calculates ways to create chaos and pain in others, Thompson also portrays the complexities in her character, showing her as vulnerable, weak, and trapped at the same time. This film is largely about power: While it’s clear that Hedda seeks control over everyone around her, Thompson’s acting reveals that this desperation stems from the fact that she inherently does not have power because of her position as a woman in society. For example, during the party scene, Thompson shows both the obvious side of Hedda — where she constantly schemes and manipulates each situation to create chaos — and also the less obvious side, where there are subtle changes in her behavior, like the constant cold expression on her face when she is reminded of her own unhappiness. Thompson’s acting is able to show the many dimensions of Hedda’s character, making her more complex than just the manipulative woman she appears to be at first glance.

However, despite Thompson’s strong performance, the script often lacks sophistication and nuance, reinforcing the sense that the film struggles to fully transport viewers into its intended time period. While Eileen Lovborg’s struggle in a male-dominated space as a lesbian woman already makes the film striking, the explicit lines make DaCosta’s intention too obvious. Some of these lines include, “do this job like a woman,” “muse is a man’s word,” and “before you were domesticated.”

“Hedda” stands as a compelling adaptation of Ibsen’s 1891 play, skillfully reimagined through a contemporary lens that highlights themes of gender, sexuality, and power. DaCosta’s reinterpretation brings freshness and relevance to Ibsen’s classic, deepening its exploration of identity and repression. However, despite its bold concepts and strong performances, the film’s imagined 1950s setting is ultimately unconvincing. Overall, a heavy-handed script and overtly modern cinematography detract from the authenticity of the period, leaving the adaptation intellectually intriguing but emotionally incomplete.