Rebellion in Hedda Gabler and Blood Relations

Plays written by Henrik Ibsen and Sharon Pollock provoke Freudian thoughts, namely, the essence or motivations behind our human existence. Henrik Ibsen boldly stated “our whole being is nothing but a fight against the dark forces within ourselves” (as cited in Lahr, 2009). Ibsen’s claim accuses the conscious human-self by stating we, as humans, lack autonomy over our own actions, as we are subconsciously driven by the desire to fulfill a grim sense of expectations in our lives. This is a prevalent theme throughout both Ibsen’s Hedda Gabler and Pollock’s Blood Relations, as both female leads ultimately struggle with the late 19th century norms for females in society.

Human beings often rebel once they come to the realization they are not autonomous over their own lives, as they buckle under the pressure of societal expectations. Both Hedda Gabler and Blood Relations allure the audience by the absence of explicitly articulating the whole thought process behind its characters. The obscurity present in both plays coupled with the feminist perspectives and active rebellions on the protagonists part, effectively depict the turmoil humans face when faced with their own limitations.

To begin, the time period of both plays contextualize the strong prevalence of feminism. Both Pollock’s Lizzie Borden and Ibsen’s Hedda Gabler were women of the late 19th century who were continuously confronted by societies expectations of being a ‘proper’ woman of the time. At the time, being proper implied being married, having substantial wealth and behaving in demure, ladylike fashions.

Get quality help now

Sweet V

Verified

Proficient in: Hedda Gabler

4.9 (984)

“ Ok, let me say I’m extremely satisfy with the result while it was a last minute thing. I really enjoy the effort put in. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

However, both women went about the rejection of their stereotyped roles quite differently. Hedda portrayed a sense of longing to live vicariously through life as a man. Some have gone so far to label Hedda’s phenomenon as the “penis envy theory”. There are several points of evidence to demonstrate Hedda’s disappointment with the role she has been given in society. Playing the dutiful wife is portrayed as boring to her. After all, the play is

named after her maiden name, as she prides herself on keeping her individuality and identity as a separate entity. She explicity explains her urning to live life freely, like men can, when she tells Lovborg, “do you find it so very surprising that a young girl [would] like some glimpse of a world that […] she’s forbidden to know anything about?” (Ibsen, 265). In addition, her constant inexplicit infatuation with male-stereotyped symbols, such as her obsession with the pistol, along with her discontent motherhood and with Thea, a proper-acting feminine woman, continue to demonstrate her poor feelings towards embracing womanhood. Hedda is constantly explicit when describing her sentiment towards having children and conforming to societies expectations, one of the several instances can be seen as she explains to Judge Brack, “I have no talent for such things, Judge. I won’t have responsibilities” (Ibsen, 256).

Meanwhile, Lizzie Borden paints the background for the actress playing her role very differently. Lizzie Borden develops a clear insight of a sense of the male misogyny at the time, as she helps the actress paint a picture of Bridget recalling a story when her father explains “women are just like horses” (Pollock, 17). This can be interpreted as women, at the time being, being regarded as less than human. Without the dominant control of a male counterpart, women are too wild and unpredictable. Unlike Hedda, Lizzie does not seem to be infatuated with explicit male-dominate symbols, but rather her love for the outdoors and opposition to marriage solidify the notion she prides herself on her independence, regardless of her gender.

Although today, marriage no longer remains to be an obligation we feel is placed on our shoulders by society, it was a social expectation that was a major taboo to disengage in during the 19th century. While both female leads have strong evidence supporting their discontent with the gender obligations, Hedda was clearly more terrified of scandal as she married to maintain her value in society and status. However, Hedda carefully married someone who would not challenge her, and whom she will be able to maintain her manipulation over. Thus, she fulfills societies needs to maintain a sense of order, but does so with great animosity. Meanwhile Lizzie seemingly could not care any less her homosexual relationship with the actress. Thus, both protagonists address how their feminist values greatly influence their life decisions, however Lizzie Borden appears to be more headstrong while Hedda is much more subtle with her rejection of her expectations as a woman.

Both women begin to spiral when they are denied the right to believe they are autonomous over their lives, and how they should play out, according to social norms. Their spiraling could be interpreted as a form of rebellion. Hedda Gabler and Lizzie Borden both rebel against the societal expectations placed on their shoulders, however they do so in extremely different fashions. Hedda is a master manipulator, and is always the one asking questions and never reveals her true intentions. She gets Thea to reveal her marital secrets, manages a love triangle between Judge, Lovborg and Mr. Tesman, and taunts Lovborg as he reveals “what power was it in you, Hedda, that made me tell you such things” (Ibsen, 265). Meanwhile, Lizzie Borden rebels against societies false sense of entitlement to the ‘truth’ and their right to pass judgment. Although she was acquitted of murder, people (including those closest to her, such as Emma and her partner, the actress) insisted on asking whether or not she is guilty. Her own sister continuously asks for over a decade, “did you do it?”. Why should they need to ask if she was acquitted? It is widely believed because they have their own preconceived notions they are searching to confirm. Lizzie rebels by never confirming nor denying their speculations. While both female leads have very different senses of rebellion, they both ultimately rebel in both seen and unseen obscene acts of violence.

Hedda’s burning of Lovborgs manuscript is an act of female empowerment against her opposition of motherhood. Initially, Thea compared the manuscript as being a child for her and Lovborg. As Hedda burns the written piece, as she revels to herself, “now I’m burning your child Thea!” (Ibsen, 288). This seen act of violence begs the question, are women too unpredictable, too much of a force to be reckoned with, when they challenge their preconceived placement in society? Hedda’s ultimate act of violence is not when she attempts to allure Lovborg to commit suicide, but is when she is out of the audiences’ view and commits suicide. She compares suicide several times as being beautiful. It is unclear at first as why, however when she is blackmailed by Judge Brack she makes this immediately clear. Once confronted by Brack, she leaves the room to play a “wild melody” and follows by a gunshot to the temple. Suicide appears to have been a beautiful act to her, as it is her ultimate form of control over her own life. Meanwhile, Lizzie Borden never seems to have been represented by the actress as displaying acts of violence, except for her speculation around the murder of her parents. She could easily deny her involvement with the extremely gruesome allegations, as her being acquitted would be enough evidence to support her claim.

However, she rather deflect the projection of these violent acts onto humanity, and their twisted desire to confirm their own horrible preconceptions. She does so by turning the accusations on both her sister and the actress. She accuses as Emma raised her, she raised her to do this obscene act and she explicitly accuses the actress, “I didn’t [murder them], you did” (Pollock, 73). As the actress turns to the audience, holding the same weapon the initial murder was conceived with, this suggests humanity plays into their own beliefs and base their judgements on what they want to believe.

In conclusion, the human rebellion conducted in efforts to save our autonomy appears to be inevitable. While the two protagonists are smart and clever women, they both engage in despicable acts to reconcile their sense of control, albeit over others or strictly over themselves. The fact the violent acts are unseen may construe an ironic representation that ‘women should beseen and not heard’. These two women both come from a time period where this notion was widely endorsed. Women are to be perfect ladies, act in the utmost gentle nature and obey societal expectations. Any devious acts cannot even be fathomed, or rather are preferred to be unfathomable as the unpredictable nature is intimidating and frightening to members of the jury (Pollock) and Judge Brack (Ibsen). Ironically, both women are very heard, and more so unseen regarding their devious acts. This rejects the notion that they are meant to be only seen, as the audience is denied access and their attention is drawn to the absence of their physical presence.