My master builder has been one of the most entertaining yet most flawed I have seen so far in our study abroad. In broad strokes, it felt like an early 2000’s movie adaptation of a play, where they kind of forget a lot of the symbolism, and just focus on getting key plot points and characters out there. It was outrageously high drama, which while fun, felt very surface level and much of the drama did not have much depth.
One of the most confusing and criticizable parts of the play was the altering of messaging from the original. There are plenty of plays that do not try to take a strong stance, but this one felt like it was posturing and heading towards a message that it never really committed to. One of the key themes was female agency, but it never seemed clear what they were actually trying to say about it.
I feel like in trying to adapt the original play from a feminist lense they accidentally did the opposite, taking away agency from a key female character and making the other seem malevolent unnecessarily. One of the most important factors in this was the changing of the portrayal of Henry. In the original he is power hungry, egotistical, and refuses to let anyone try and move past him, which is key to the conflict of the story. In this adaptation he is just kind of a regular guy who did a really fucked up thing 10 years ago, but now is just passively there. He rarely takes a strong stance or makes a definitive choice, and I feel like this reduces the power of the supporting female leads around him because there is no strong central force for the story without his ego.
I was also confused by the decision to remove the agency and power of Hilda in this version of the story. While the other main female character, Henry’s wife, had a much more active role and held more power than in the original, that feels somewhat undermined by changing Hilda from a manipulative mastermind character to one who, similar to Henry, does not feel like they are making any strong stances in the play
While the messaging felt a lot less clear, and not as well presented, there were some things that I thought the play was trying to make commentary about. The biggest one that I picked up was grooming, and how it is viewed by society. The relationship between Henry and Hilda showcased how messy and blurry grooming can get, because the victim themselves often denies that’s what was happening. It also showcases a lot of the slut shaming and victim blaming that often comes along with being a victim of grooming.
Another key message I saw was about power imbalance and how it is often hard to see where the imbalance lies. There are a lot of intersections of power so it can be hard to determine who actually holds more. I believe Henry’s relationship with Hilda is primarily about preserving what he sees as his personal “power”. While he has some interest in her before learning of his wife’s plans of divorce, afterwards he starts to pursue her much more adamantly, which mirrors their initial affair which occurred when he and his wife were separated. I believe in both cases he feared losing a sense of power or control over his wife, so he attached himself to Hilda. This is also mirrored by his wife, who starts to pursue Henry actively again after being rejected by Ragnar. I think in both cases the characters feared being alone, or not having power over someone else, so went to what they felt was a safe option.
Despite this criticism, I still think the play was very enjoyable. It had over the top drama, was fast paced, and always kept me engaged. If Gnome and Juliet is garden decorations meets Shakespeare, then My Master Builder is B-tier television drama meets Ibsen.
Theatre in London U of A 