Omaha daily bee., 1908-12-13

-F ONE had seen AHA Hazimova
LF only as Nora, the opinion
~ would be that she Is merely a
49, fad and not a great actress.
I4AIS1N The character Of Nora is one
49, OF the most peculiar evolved
py lbsen, She runs from extreme to ex-
IRENE abnormal, perhaps. in everything,
except her one desire 10 be accounted as
an individual entity in the general scheme
OF things. IT lie due. perhaps, to her lack
OF experience that she suffers from the
plunted mental and moral perception that
leads her into the peculiar position that
makes the play possible. It is not en-
ureiy unfair to the sex to say that in
some measure Nora represents woman's
faculty for reasoning. But this in Itself
10 due more to the condition that surrounds
her life than to her lack Of capacity.
Madame Nazlmova does not make this
very clear In her illustration OF the char
Rcter. She Is artificial almost to the ut
most, and scarcely has a sincere moment.
In the lighter passages of the play she is
delightful, for there she allows her own
personality to dominate. For example.
whom she plays with her children, she is
little more than a cat romping with her
kittens, It IL the natural impulse of the
mother to enjoy herself with her little
ones. In this case, perhaps, enhanced by
the reflex action Of mind seeking relief
from the strain brought about by a certain
vague apprehension coming from the knowl-
edge of the financial burden that has been
worrying her.
The sudden termination OF his exuberant
Soy by the apparition of her crime is the
change that turns Nora from a woman to
be envied into one TO be pitied, and yet
NaEimova with all her art fails to endow
Nora with that quality which should de-
mand and receive the spontaneous sym
pathy OF the auditor. As the play pro-
crosses this apparent lack OF sincerity be-
comes its dominant note. and the serious
aspect OF the role is entirely lost in the
artificiality with which It is presented
until the very closing scene. At the end
Nazimova again becomes the woman, and
the more logical and reasoning woman,
and makes her point most effectively. The
contrast between this and the work that
has preceded It is so great that one can
scarcely believe 1t to be the achievement
OF the same woman. The only reasonable
basis for explanation of this wide varia-
tion In result is that the character of Nora
IN Its development from the happy, oare-
less, loving mother to the determined
thoughtful woman does not appeal directly
20 the actress, and she does not give It
the care necessary for Its proper interpre-
tation.
When Nazimova ceases to be Nora and
becomes Hedda, then she takes on an en-
tirely different aspect and shows a vastly
more Interesting phase OF her art. From
the moment she enters until her final exit
she is slowly and carefully building up the
character until It becomes a truly great
creation. Probably the most noteworthy
achievement in this connection is that she
has succeeded in dispelling the glamor of
mysticism that has been thrown around
the part by other actresses or written into
1t by the erudlte critics who have dealt
with 1t. Many, many words have been ex-
pended in an effort to account for the ac-
ton of Hedda. She has been called a neu-
rotie. Her moodiness has been assigned to
climatic insanity, due TO her physical con-
dition, and much debate of a pathological
nature followed. If the Nazimova inter-
probation is accurate, these learned GENTLE
men have all been at fault, for under the
treatment Of this talented Russian, Hedda
Gabler becomes merely a normal woman
That rs TO say, she is a woman Of flesh
and blood, and of life, and with aspirations
and a desire TO be something more than an
article of furniture in her husbands house
She is married to a man who spends his
wedding tour in grubbing among the musty
tones and moth-eaten manuscripts of old
libraries and who enlivens their railroad
Journeys by discussions on the Industrial
life OF the middle ages, and reports when
he finally reaches home that he had had
a delightful wedding trip, Delightful for
the husband, no doubt, who found annie
opportunity 10 indulge himself in his W
way, but how about the bride, who sud
denly found the horizon Of her Imagination
circumseribed to the dull, prosaic, limlta.
lions OF a poverty stricken man, whose ut,
most ambition was to obtain a professor
ship on whose salary he might support a
wireG Is 1t any wonder that when Hedda
Gabler returned as Hedda Tesman, after
six months OF such society, that she was
bored and disseminated and wholly DESTROYS
of doing something that would bring about
a changer When she did reach home she
was greeted by another man, who almost
Immediately proposed to her that she for
sake her marriage vows, I'm spirit, at least.
While pretending to be the closest friend
OF the husband. this man makes brutaIly
frank overtures to the wife, and then the
third man comes in the person of one with
whom she had had relations of intimate
comradeship, and she finds that he has
turned away from her and derives his in
SEPARATION from the presence of another
woman. Every hope that she had cher
ished, even to the saddle horse, Is stripped
from her on the first day after she reaches
her home, and the picture of life that is
stretched out before her is certainly not
one to inspire. Even a weaker woman
thar Hedda would nave rebelled at the
situation.
The men in the play are equally normal.
each being thoroughly consumed with his
own vanity, looking upon himself
as the one individual 10 whom
is embodied all the attributes that
would make a woman happy,
and frankly considering Mrs. Tesman as
being extremely fortunate in having the
opportunity TO devote herself exclusively
to such an one as he. Neither OF them for
a moment seems to think that anything is
due TO the woman. IL Is for her to bask
luxuriously In the radiance of hts being
nant presence and TO. enjoy 10 the fullest
the blessing OF his existence. And these
three men. each impeFyious in his selfish